Are You a Progressive Conservative or a Classic Liberal?
Looking back upon the past year it seems as though our American society was in many ways as schizophrenic as at any time in my memory. It seems to me that rather than clashes between two well defined philosophies on opposite sides of the spectrum we saw more of a three dimensional scramble in every direction. Obviously I am talking in part about the differences in points of view that exist within the Republican Party; but I am also seeing a pretty wide chasm between Democrats on a lot of issues as well.
The past year has been an interesting one. Health care dominated the news cycle, with the news and polls getting progressively worse for the president as the year went on. Obamacare is one example of the kind of issue that divided the nation last year. Those on the right universally opposed it from the beginning, with those on the left seeing it as the Holy Grail of accomplishments, a bold step toward single-payer, Universal Health Care. It was the president’s signature piece of legislation and the right’s number one target.
While single payer could more properly be called a socialist health care plan, with government taking direct control of health care, Obamacare leaves private insurance companies still in place, but government controls what they can offer, how much profit they can make, and imposes a number of taxes and penalties on the health care process, with government bureaucrats controlling a large piece of the process. This is not free market capitalism and it is not properly called socialism. Fascism is when industry is allowed to retain ownership but government tightly controls the operation of the business.
We learned this year from one Edward Snowden that our federal government, in the form of the NSA, is gathering information on the daily phone calls of all Americans, as well as information about our internet usage and of course a picture is taken of the front and back of every piece of mail processed by the US Postal Service. Certain Republicans split from other Republicans on whether or not this violates the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution. It should be noted that Democrats were also not of one mind.
This NSA problem is a great example of where the traditional labels have broken down. Rep. Mike Rogers and Rep. Peter King are on television constantly backing up the president’s assertion that this is a great program to keep us safe and nobody has violated anyone’s rights and that your information is perfectly safe, even though they gave Edward Snowden broad access to it and are now very upset that the information was not secure. Current NSA director James Clapper actually lied about the program under oath in front of Congress when he denied any of it was going on.
On the social front, both gay rights and pot made pretty big gains across the country. Race relations took a pretty definitive step backwards, with tensions flaring over a Hispanic man who killed a black teenager in Florida, and the Supreme Court struck down part of the voting rights act, allowing states to decide their own voting laws without the federal government’s approval. Eric Holder was apoplectic.
Comprehensive Immigration passed the Senate and died in the House, for now. Half of the Republicans in the senate were named RINOs for supporting the bill and targeted by the Tea Party for replacement.
The House and Senate finally agreed in a bipartisan budget agreement (after how many years?) and the agreement by all accounts sucks. It increases spending and taxes in the next two years and only cuts the deficit slightly over 10 years. This happened after a government shutdown caused when neither side was willing to negotiate over the budget/continuing resolution/debt ceiling and Republicans unsuccessfully pushed the issue over Obamacare.
And then Obamacare sucked worse than anyone could have imagined and Americans have come to disapprove of it wholeheartedly but the president assures us there is not a thing we can do about it; the law stays as long as he does. But the problems with the program have caused the whole thing to be a pretty big mess and so the future of our health care as a nation is at this point unclear. Democrats like Joe Manchin and Mary Landrieu have begun putting distance between themselves and the Law they voted for.
Speaker Boehner got pretty upset about the conservatives and called them out as the year closed. Chris Christie decried the “streak of libertarianism” running through both parties as being dangerous. One wonders what to call Chris Christie or John Boehner or Barack Obama or Joe Manchin or Rand Paul or Hillary Clinton. As suggested by the title above, the labels don’t work anymore.
I am a Classic, 19th-Century Liberal. That is not the same as a modern day conservative, and not exactly libertarian. I am a Free Market Capitalist. That is not the same as a Crony Capitalist or a Corporatist. And I am decidedly not a Progressive. Confused? Yes, it is confusing. Here is a link to the Wikipedia entry for “Progressive Conservatism”. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_conservatism Some of you might think that to be a contradiction in terms but it is not. Teddy Roosevelt, Taft, and Eisenhower all described themselves that way. Amongst conservatives, there are also a wide number of different forms, including (classical) Liberal Conservatism, Libertarian Conservatism, Fiscal Conservatism, National, Traditional, Social, and Cultural Conservatism. Here is the link. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatives And as for the aforementioned Classical Liberalism, it is that philosophy upon which our country was founded in large part. It is the philosophy of Adam Smith and John Locke. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberals
I regret that those on the left have now taken the label of Liberal and sullied it with their view of the world being attached to it. It comes from the base word Liberty and belongs to those who love the Lady, and not those who embrace more government. FA Hayek wrote in his 1956 preface to The Road to Serfdom:
“I use the term “liberal” in the original, nineteenth-century sense…In current American usage it often means very nearly the opposite of this. It has been part of the camouflage of leftist movements in this country, helped by the muddleheadedness of many who really believe in liberty, that “liberal” has come to mean the advocacy of almost every kind of government control. I am still puzzled why those in the United States who truly believe in liberty should not only have allowed the left to appropriate this almost indispensible term but should even have assisted by beginning to use it as a term of opprobrium. This seems to be particularly regrettable because of the consequent tendency of many true liberals to describe themselves as conservatives.
It is true, of course, that in the struggle against the believers in the all-powerful state the true liberal must sometimes make common cause with the conservative, and in some instances, as in contemporary Britain, he has hardly any other way of actively working for his ideals. But true liberalism is still distinct from conservatism, and there is danger in the two being confused. Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic, and power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place. A conservative movement, by its very nature, is bound to be a defender of established privilege and to lean on the power of government for the protection of privilege. The essence of the liberal position, however, is the denial of all privilege, if the privilege is understood in its proper and original meaning of the state granting and protecting rights to some which are not available on equal terms to others.”
I must agree with Hayak here. I realize this may seem like pure semantics but as they say words have meaning, and I hope to shed some light on the lack of useful labels for our current leaders. And I must say I am somewhat appalled that we seem to be more worried about political expediency than we are core philosophy. We cannot keep evaluating each new issue by reading polls and examining our “feelings” on what is right and wrong. We must instead examine the underlying principle involved and stick to our core philosophy and convictions, even when it is uncomfortable.
And crises present big challenges. The attack on the World Trade Center convinced many people that it was acceptable to trade a little Liberty for a little Security. The problems that we had with health care were enough for us to allow government and industry to join together in what should be a completely unacceptable fashion and tell the American people what we must purchase. And the threat of another government shutdown and possible drop in the polls was enough for us to agree to increase spending when we are already $17 trillion in debt and adding $700 billion more every year.
It is said that we have to stop having philosophical battles and win some elections. It is said that we must compromise and come together. It is true; sometimes in order to affect change we have to work with others who have similar goals in order to get the result we are seeking. But other times we must stick up for principle. Some things are not negotiable.
I do not speak for anyone but myself; but I do have some quick ideas on a few things that are part of my own philosophy. You may not agree, and that is ok. But if not I would encourage you to figure out what principle of yours it violates, and be able to articulate it. There is an election in the fall and before the politicians start telling you what to think it would be nice if you already knew what you think. So here is what I think.
· We have a spending problem. We have a debt problem. We have a deficit problem. We CANNOT kick this can down the road any further. We must not hand this massive indebtedness on to our children and grandchildren. This is not negotiable any more. We need dramatic changes in order to get control of our budget problems. We must live within our means.
· We must reform the tax code. It is crucial that we get rid of the loopholes and grants and waivers and bailouts and handouts and I am not necessarily a fan of balancing it all out with tax cuts. It is true that as a nation we have very high corporate taxes, but we cannot keep giving crony money to large corporations. It reduces competition and is anti-free markets. We must have a fair playing field.
· We have an entitlement problem. Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps, Unemployment, and now ObamaCare; all are dysfunctional and out of control. The unfunded liabilities with these programs are enormous. Nobody is suggesting that we abandon the poor, but not only can we not afford all of these programs but we are creating a culture of dependence. Hard work and living frugal are important values and we do our children no favors by sparing them from them.
· We have a personal liberty problem. My concerns with the NSA could fill many columns but between the NSA and the NDAA and the Patriot Act we have had too much of our personal liberties eroded. In my opinion the activities of this federal government seem to be intent on taking away our privacy and civil liberties. From gun control to Homeland Security, there is a real movement toward government having more information on and control of our personal lives than is constitutional or wise. We need to curtail their power.
· We have an education problem. America’s kids are falling further and further behind the rest of the world. We are not first in anything academically and in most cases we are barely in the middle of the pack. School Districts in our major cities have dismal high school graduation rates. From “No Child Left Behind” to “Common Core”, the federal government is failing in its quest to improve education. We need to get the federal government out of education and return that responsibility to states and local districts. Our children are our future and although I do not believe in equal outcomes I do believe in equality of opportunity and we really must do better with our children.
· We have a government problem. Our federal government is too big, too powerful, and too intrusive. We need to begin the process of reducing its size and power right away, and that will be a reversal in direction that will be difficult to achieve. We also have an imbalance of power not just between parties but between branches with the Executive branch taking too much on itself. The states need to take back power as well.
· We have a cultural problem. It seems to me honesty is something of a dying art. Hard work is not always prized. Respect and civility are sometimes rare qualities in our discourse. Education is sometimes viewed as selling out. Violence is not just tolerated but celebrated among certain groups. Life is cheap, rather than being recognized as the most valuable thing we have.
· We have a problem with prejudices. Not everyone, but to be sure many do. Not just race but gender and sexual orientation and religion and national origin. And not just on the right but on the left. Regular Americans are vilified for expressing opinions that our counter to the official government position. I know some of you will bristle with that suggestion, but here is my philosophy; First, if you had no part in it, I will not judge you on it. Second, if it does not infringe on the rights of me or others, it is none of my business. People are not responsible for the color of their skin and it says nothing of their character. Likewise with where you were born or if you were born into a Jewish or Catholic family. People should just be considered “people”, and not labeled with qualifiers without meaning. The flip side is that we need to do away with Affirmative Action and Hate Crimes and put the blindfold back on Liberty.
The New Year brings with it a fresh look at what the future will bring. Challenges await us and our children in a lot of areas. New technology such as 3D printers and microchips and robots will change our lives. It will also give additional tools that might wish to take away our liberties. Retailers will track our every move in order to better know and meet our needs and others will use the same information to rob us of our money and property and still others, (those in Washington) will be looking at ways to use that information to control us in the name of security.
Our children are going to have to get a lot smarter if they are going to be able to stay free. The price of liberty, as you know, is eternal vigilance. Vigilance, and a clear understanding of the threat.
No comments:
Post a Comment