travisthornton.net

I recently took a hiatus from this website to rethink what its purpose has been.  I realized that through this website, I have been able to define my own views on the news that will inevitably become history.  Some of the news has been minutiae, and some has been grandiose, but all is now part of our nation’s history.  I’d like to look at some minutiae of the 2008 Presidential race now, and by drawing from it some historical lessons, show some of the ideological implications the finer details may carry.

News

This week, the “bitter” comments of Senator Obama drew much attention.  Obama claims that Pennsylvanians are bitter about government, and as a result, “cling to guns and religion.”  These two symbols are separately representative of most Americans freedoms and faith.  In his claim, Obama comes across as condescending and ultimately Messianic.  You see, Obama wants to assume the role of guarantor, bringing Americans their security and salvation, as they will come to know it.  Obama is debunking dogma, while simultaneously wallowing in it.  He wishes to displace actual hope with a sense of reliance upon himself; “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” the time is now, as he “asks us to believe” in him.  According to Obama, “If changing our hearts and minds is the first step, we cannot stop there.”  Sorry to break it to you, Obama, but if this society collapses, most Americans will be clinging to our guns and Bibles, and as a little bit of campaign advice, as you try to “change” things, you should leave that cold fact alone.

Also on the campaign trail, echoes of shared prosperity, shared responsibility, and a supposed assault on the middle class can be heard from a certain side of the aisle.  Earlier this week on C-SPAN, I heard Hillary Clinton ask college students to pursue “good middle class jobs.”  What’s wrong with upper class jobs, Hillary, especially after paying for years of college?  But Democrats will get their way, even if they have to tax the upper class back into the middle class.  I’ve heard this line before.

I understand that “Change” is a concept all Americans want after the last eight years endured.  It is true, that today many Americans believe that, “to achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.”  As to not plagiarize, that quote is the mission statement of the Democratic Socialists of America (www.dsausa.org).  Needless to say, we need to exercise caution in the kind of change we want here in America.

History

The campaign rhetoric is scary, but not new.  With all this talk of a rising “collective voice,” “fighting for the common good,” I am reminded that the world has seen political characters that could unite nations, in personalities such as Mussolini, Mao, and Hitler.  To be fair, not all of Germany agreed with Hitler’s press onward, which indeed outpaced the world’s imagination, but collectively, silent Germans haphazardly participated in the nationalist movement by not speaking out, by not fighting back, and by remaining silent.

The “Silent Majority” Richard Nixon spoke of in the seventies is alive and well (albeit sedated in front of reality television) now in 2008.  This year is indeed attracting younger people to politics, and sure, more people are interested in this election than ever before, but for all the wrong reasons.  Political issues of concern are lapel pins, pariah Reverends, Bosnia sniper fire comments, McCain’s age, Obama’s race, Clinton’s sex, and any slue of personal issues.  Policy is rarely approached, and it seems ideology is never, ever, discussed.  The Iraq War may be discussed, but just war theory is not.  Social Security may be discussed, but the current efficiency of our welfare state is not.

Historically, it takes a war (or a rocky economy) for Americans to be interested in the government process.  A frightening point I’d like to make is that under the shroud of war, social welfare legislation passes through Congress with ease.  The same can be said about economic concern.  We can turn to history for examples.  During the Great Crash, FDR was able to implement a tremendous amount of “New Deal” policy, of which we inherited Social Security as legacy.  During the Vietnam War, LBJ was able to push his “Great Society” agenda, of which we now have Medicare and Medicaid.  America is so entrenched in these policies that now we cannot imagine not having these programs as part of our thread.  Never mind the fact that Social Security has swollen to twenty-two percent, and Medicare and Medicaid now constitute twenty percent, of our federal budget.  Compare that to fifteen percent for education, and thirteen percent for our military budget and national security.  Now, we have both a global war and a rocky economy.  What additional programs will be added to the load of the government, and inevitably, its people?  Health insurance, then what?  Meanwhile, the American people plead, “Nolo contendere,” while Congress stalls on the major issues and passes temporary solutions to major problems for political gains.  Consider the “Economic Stimulus Package” an example of a temporary solution.

Stalemate

Somehow, in the face of so many serious domestic social and economic issues, as well as foreign policy, energy, and environmental issues, our Congress seems to be at an impasse.  Each party has its “party line opinion,” but these opinions are dominated by fringe elements within a party’s wings.  This is true for both parties, as Conservative radio, of which I am a fan, dictates the Republican Party line, and far left liberal groups such as MoveOn.org determines the Democratic Party line.  The majority party opinions are not too far from each other, but rarely do politicians cross those lines to accomplish crucial business in Congress, as they will be subsequently bashed by the fringe elements, and may lose the support the fringe provides.  Meanwhile, the American people, who embody a moderate majority, are disenfranchised.  See graph below for a visual description of this situation. 

Fringe elements are responsible for the current Congressional stalemate.  Representative government is gone.  Often, I feel as though a High School Student Council meeting could render better results.  Our Congress is disconnected from the society it serves, and what’s worse, they believe merely throwing money and legislation at our problems will fix them; from housing foreclosures, to college costs, to credit card debt and airline delays, bailouts and bills of rights seem to be the comfortable answer for many Congressmen.  I see it as legislation for the sake of legislation.  How does it affect our individual freedoms?  I believe there must be another way.

This shift away from a federal system, where state and local governments and private industry has control, and towards a central government is not the only directional evolution we can observe; Congressional leadership has allowed our government to shift from Legislative Branch power to an Imperialist Presidential post.  This is evident when we listen to the statements of the Congressional leaders themselves.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi rely on the President to set the tone, and blame him for any and everything wrong with government.  The power lies with the Legislative Branch, but is often relinquished through fast tracking, and frankly the tone of rhetoric used by Congressional leaders.

Personally, Harry Reid reminds me of a modern day Henry Wallace.  Henry Wallace was VP to FDR, and was seen by many liberals to be the natural successor to the Presidency.  He challenged Truman for the Presidency on a third-party ticket in 1948.  In his party’s acceptance speech, Wallace condemned American foreign policy repeatedly while never once citing the threat of the Soviet Union.  He publicly sought the appeasement of Stalin.  This ultimately led to his defeat, as he was not trusted by the moderate majority.  His skepticism seemed an indictment of America itself, and a denial of American exceptionalism.  We must ask ourselves what truly makes America exceptional; I believe it to be the freedom we thoroughly enjoy.  Freedom has pushed this society to have the highest standard of living in the world, as it has since this nation’s conception.

Liberty

I hold the personal belief that conservatism serves the public good better than liberalism, but I also believe that individualism does more than conservatism.  I hope not to offend liberals, or conservatives, but I believe progressivism is contrary to the spirit of liberty, and individual liberties are paramount to the survival of our society.  Let me explain why.  In progressive codependency, our government and its citizenry invest in each other, and during trying times, one feels like it owes the other something.  This state of “mutual entitlement” marks the beginning of a march downward, from a free society to a fear society, and from individual liberties to collective liberties, then from collective liberty to the securities of progressivism, down into collectivism.  Then, as liberties become displaced by securities, the government gains tighter control over its subjects, and totalitarianism takes root.  If you don’t believe my assessment, take Adolf Hitler’s word for it:  “Our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest.”  In light of this historical reference, I get antsy when I hear Barack Obama say, “Our individual salvation depends on our collective salvation,” or Hillary Clinton, when she says, “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” 

There must be another way, or so our founding fathers believed.  For them, balancing freedom and security was a crucial reality.  When deciding on this society’s genetic makeup, our founding fathers erred on the side of liberty.  Our laws, and even the Constitution, may be tweaked throughout the history of this country, but we should always heed our forefathers intentions for freedom’s survival.  Patrick Henry asked us in 1775, “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?”  Security comes in the word, “Surrender.”  Maintaining freedom is more difficult than that.  It is the work of the American people, and is accomplished through our votes.

In essence, this is not a rant.  This is not a condemnation of one party, or an endorsement of another.  This is connecting the struggles of history to the current ideological struggle of this society.  This is a call to pay attention and preserve our country and its liberties.

“My vigor relents.  I pardon something to the spirit of liberty.” - Edmund Burke, Speech on Conciliation with America