travisthornton.net

Well, I guess I have some reckoning of my own to do.

I must admit, although I was an ardent supporter of John McCain for President, and I have not, nor will not, drink the Kool-Aid sitting before me, I will be the first to say that I have been impressed with the high level of professionalism shown by Barack Obama post-election, pleasantly surprised with (most of) the selections he has made for his Cabinet, and I am looking forward to the future.  So, yes, the doomsday scenario I laid out on this website may have been a bit of an exaggeration.  I am wary, of course… but hopeful, and happily so.

But the New Year has come, the campaign rallies are over, and after the inauguration (2 weeks from today), the dust will settle and the reality of impending challenges (whether they be further bailouts, public-private mergers, threats of war, or “unknown unknowns”) will begin to evolve into history-making.  The burden of proof now lies with the Democrats, and all eyes will be on their strengthened caucus; however, there is still a heavy undertaking ahead for the Republican Party as they find their way forward.  Unchecked, the size of government could balloon greather than its critical mass, squeezing out the ideals of freedom through public-private mergers.  Republicans must stay focused in the years to come, because distractions abound.

Who Made Who?

The Republican identity crisis is now being fought out between the three legs of the “conservative stool”:  that is, 1) strong foreign policy, 2) fiscal responsibility, and 3) social conservatism, or the value voters.  Pull one leg out of the caucus, and the entire platform collapses.

The Clinton era, with its upwardly mobile economy (thanks to the desktop computer), a quiet international front (due to our oblivion of the facts), and scandalous behavior by the Commander-in-Chief, put social conservatism on the front-burner, while the other camps cooled off.   September 11th changed all that; hawkish foreign policy was now co-equal with social values within the Republican Party.  The last leg, that of economic conservatism, was wholly ignored in the Bush era, as government grew 40% in the past eight years.  Currently this expansion of government shows absolutely no signs of slowing during the next Administration, and has taken a turn for the worst as we observe the largest public-private merger in American history.

Sadly, fiscal responsibility, the essence of conservatism and limited government, is in serious danger, and its collapse might take this entire country with it.   Yet somehow, candidates like Ron Paul and the libertarian wing get painted as kooks.  Considering the GOP just lost a Senate seat to the likes of Al Franken, who looks like the kooks now?

(Franken, with one of his constituents.)

Let’s start from the beginning, and look at the sociological crisis within our government, take a little walk through history, and see how it relates to our individual freedoms and fiscal conservatism.

Of Power and Fame

So, sure, Democrats are handing the Republicans ammunition as we speak:  glamorous pictures of the President-elect, dripping wet in Hawaii; flagrant extensions of Camelot, undeserved, in New York; scandals and swindles between the Governor’s office and “others” in Illinois; and this Franken upset.  America needs to choose between this sprouting Celebritocracy of fame and wealth, or a Meritocracy, of ”virtue and talents,” as Thomas Jefferson put it.

Have we lost the American ideal of small government, composed of a citizen legislature, limited in their powers over the citizenry?  Perhaps.  Are we ruled by “common people” anymore?  I digress to argue against the idea of the common man.  My eyes have been opened by author and statesman Mickey Edwards, who points out in his book Reclaiming Conservatism the fallacy of generalization, as politicians in their quest for power might refer to a middle class “common man.”  This begs the question, “What is a common man?”  The term “common” implies some common experience, of common background, rendering common results.  Who sets ”common” goals?  Who strives daily at work or elsewhere to be referred to as simply common?  No, I don’t think we were to be denoted as common or uncommon, ordinary or extraordinary, peasants or celebrities.

We are all unique creatures, of different backgrounds, with different interests… or to be a little more HR about it, we are all special people created by God with different pasts and different futures.  This is the essence of individuality; referring to a man as “common” or average, or to people as “The People,” is to infer one life upon another.  Mickey Edwards goes on in his book to quote Theodore Rozak as he described Karl Marx’s Communist vision:  “There is no sensitivity for the person – only for the people.”  No, our country was founded on a different set of principles, where individuals, not collectives, deserve our respect.  Enter:  the Constitution!

Dost thou wax Olde School?

Consider the fact that at the Virginia Ratifying Convention of 1788, Patrick Henry, the original champion of libertarian dissent in the politisphere, debated the first three words of our Constitution, ”We, the People,” saying of its founders, “What right had they to say, We, the people?  My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask:  Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states?  States are the characteristics and the soul of confederation.  If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one, great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all states.”  His argument may seem absurd to us, but Patrick Henry’s dissent is a perfect example of our forefathers’ hesitancy towards the collectivism of a strong national government able to impose its will far and wide, thereby restricting the people from governing themselves.

Patrick Henry went on to say, “If we admit this consolidated government, it will be because we like a great, splendid one.  Some way or other we must be a great and mighty empire; we must have an army, and a navy, and a number of things.  When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different:  liberty, sir, was then the primary object.”

Somewhere along the way, we lost our focus.  Congress’ enumerated powers as described in Article I, Section 8 got twisted and distorted, particularly with regards to the “common defense and general welfare” of the American citizenry; certain divisions have been made, and they are quite alarming in the way they permeate our society.  Above is a picture of an elderly woman being registered to vote; when we look at this picture, why do we automatically assume he works for the Democratic Party, and that she will vote Democrat, instead of Republican?  What’s wrong with the conservative tenets of the Republican Party?  Why would anyone find individual liberties, free markets, free minds and limited government that unattractive?

Mischief of Factions

The problem is, that’s not what the Republican Party stands for anymore.  “The base” is not concerned with such trivial matters, when they see a culture war underway in our country.  The phrase “conservative lifestyle” invokes the wrong set of mental connotations; we think of Mr. Goody Twoshoes in his prudish glory, carrying a Bible in one hand and his school books in the other.  Social values and their discontents (gay marriage, abortion, immigration, etc) have nothing to do with sensible policy-making or Constitutional conservatism, and entangling one with the other has lead to a lot of the confusion we now see within the Republican Party.  I say the GOP must abandon social conservatism, the mischief within the Republican faction, as their leading mantra, if they want to come back from their recent defeats of 2006 and 2008.

In The Federalist, Number 10, James Madison says of the corruption of political parties, “There are two methods of curing the mischief of faction:  the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.  There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction:  the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.” 

Madison considers both methods of removing the cause of faction evil; therefore, the best way to handle a flawed party is by controlling its effects, through democratic means.  We don’t work for Congress; they work for us.  We hold them accountable with our vote.  Their duty is to represent their constituency; we make it easier on them by having an opinion to represent. 

It’s not a just a right, or a privilege; it’s your duty.  You don’t have to agree with me, just have an opinion.  It defines who you are.

Along with The Federalist, Number 10, there is another “10″ our government need to consider:  the Tenth Amendment reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  This wasn’t some afterthought; this law echoes the sentiments of revolutionary author Thomas Paine:  “All Power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning.  It must be either delegated, or assumed.  There are no other sources.  All delegated power is trust, all assumed power is usurpation.  (emphasis added)  Time does not alter the nature and quality of either.”

A Way Forward

The GOP stands at the proverbial crossroads, and a land of opportunity awaits… but which way to go?  Lewis Carroll once said, “If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will get you there.”  This applies quite nicely to the plight of the Republicans as the find their way forward.

As previously stated in Part 1 of this Reckoning, the Republican Party is “cut loose and allowed to wander in the wilderness.”  They will have to rediscover their principles, and possibly redefine their base, before they can ever appeal to moderates.  Republicans claim to be conservatives, but what is a conservative?  The definition itself has its own meaning in America.  Both major parties are actually classically liberal, while American conservatives are trying to conserve founders’ intent as set forth in our U.S. Constitution.  Until the GOP returns to this singular ideal, they are not conservatives.

Adams, Jefferson, and our Constitution

The laws and liberties of our Constitution have defined conservatism since this nation’s conception.  John Adams, as leader of the Federalist Party, is considered by some as the first American conservative, and as such, a revolutionary in thought.  In his 1776 Thoughts on Government, Adams defined a republic as an “empire of laws, not men.”  His ideas surely contributed to the founding of our Constitution, the shortest and longest living document in the history of free societies (not a coincidence).

However, Adams also contended:  “The proposition that the people are the best keepers of their own liberties is not true.  They are the worst conceivable, they are no keepers at all; they can neither judge, act, think, or will, as a political body.”  Therefore, laws are needed to protect liberty, and though he was mindful of the corruption of absolute power, he turned laws against liberty, and consequently passed the malevolent Alien and Sedition Acts during his term as President, which had to be overturned by his successor, Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson was more of an idealist that Adams, and although he was not present at its signing, he contends:  “On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”  As an idealist, Jefferson saw the mischief of faction within government, and surmises that the Constitution should be the arbiter of laws and liberty.  In 1798, Thomas Jefferson warned of the corruption of power within policy-making:  “Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism.  Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence… In matters of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

Laws and Liberty

There is a natural juxtaposition between laws and liberty, and a balance is needed, but which takes priority over the other?  Philosophers have debated over this since the beginning of civilization.  John Stuart Mill, in his 1859 classic On Liberty, states, “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”  Fellow utilitarian and British statesman Jeremy Bentham even went so far as to say, “Every law is an infraction of liberty.”

Mill summarized the harm principle in saying, “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”  This sentiment echoes that of Greek scholar Epicurus, who around 300 BC wrote, “Justice is the kind of compact not to harm or be harmed.”  Sounds a bit like the Hippocratic Oath, “First, do no harm,” doesn’t it?

Our country was founded from the simplicity of the harm principle; our government was established through a social contract to guarantee the liberties therein, and not much else.  I am not advocating anarchy; society necessitates government, and as Jeremy Bentham himself (philosopher and friend of John Stuart Mill) warns, “Tyranny and anarchy are never far apart.”  Hurriedly, the former would replace the latter.

We should not fear revolution here, but instead the slow regression, the idea that government knows best how its citizens should live, in what Friedrich Hayek called the “Fatal Conceit.”   In this novel, he contends, “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”  Current events best illustrates our fatal conceit, in that somehow a general consensus is drawn that government should grant loans to troubled businesses, and should establish criteria for private industry. 

I’m guilty of this idea as well, that government should help prevent systemic collapse, and industry can be revitalized by government in a growth/decay model (that is, public money aids a private sector, then has a plan to back out when industry prospers, hopefully; but if it fails, government still backs out), but such government intervention leads to a loss of freedom; consider these conclusions of the Tax Foundation:  “Government continues to dominate the American taxpayer’s budget,” said Tax Foundation president Scott Hodge.  “Americans will still spend more on taxes in 2008 than they will spend on food, clothing and housing combined.”  In 2008, Americans will work 74 days to afford their federal taxes and 39 more days to pay state and local taxes.  Meanwhile, buying food requires 35 days of work, clothing 13 days, and housing 60 days.  Other major categories are health and medical care (50 days), transportation (29 days), and recreation (21 days).

Our Current Crisis

So what’s next?  How do you think all of this applies now?  Well, with a trillion dollar stimulus package, including an overlooked proposal for tax breaks for companies who report losses in 2008 and 2009, the name “Adam Smith” rises to the surface.  Providing tax benefits for ineffective companies inhibits supply-and-demand, the driving force of our market.  With these endless safety nets, yet another subject stops, gets into the cart, while less and less keep pulling it.

Bailouts, stimulus programs, government projects and the like conflict with our freedoms… but most agree some intervention is necessary.  I do, too; but what?  It becomes clearer that the debate between laws and liberty is not simply linear.  The incoming Administration faces the challenge of balancing, in the words of our President-elect, ”social and economic justice” with liberty.  A hefty task.  However, trying to achieve social and economic justice at the price of liberty is un-American; yes, I said it, but I’m not alone in doing so.  Consider the words of – who else? – Adam Smith:  ”If a nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect liberty and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation which could ever have prospered.”

On the night of our 2008 elections, Senator Bob Kerrey, a Democrat from Nebraska, said, “The Democrats have not won a mandate for all their policies.  Rather, the American people have resoundingly registered their frustration with a failed status quo, and the next President must chart a new, less partisan course.”  The Left claims that President Bush was ideological:  false.  He was partisan; he was politically calculating; but he had no overarching vision for government.  If he did, he failed in its execution, and our democracy rendered its verdict on hyperpartisanship.

Me?  Well, a large part of me is optimistic about our incoming Administration.  The guy is smart.  He strives to understand both sides of the argument.  He has the wind at his back.  He has assembled a great team of savvy personnel to advise him.  It’s just his underlying ideology, evident every so often, that strikes the wrong chord and scares the doodoo out of me. 

Now, don’t misunderstand me:  I don’t see anything wrong with ideology; a set of values to fall back upon will help find answers regardless of the situation.  It’s a backwards-thinking ideology, that fatal conceit, of believing in “good government” that I fear, for America is the land of opportunity, not the land of guarantee; inasmuch, we are promised the right to pursue happiness, not the promise of it.

Finally, in the approaching efforts to “provide for the common defence and general welfare,” of citizens, a line must be drawn and an effort made to keep temporary government programs temporary and conserve our Constitutional freedoms, including our economic freedoms.  Doing so in the face of adversity will redefine conservatism, and the Republican Party, for the better.

“Consider our situation, Sir:  Go to the poor man, ask him what he does; he will inform you, that he enjoys the fruits of his labour, under his own fig-tree, with his wife and children around him, in peace and security.  Go to every other member of the society, you will find the same tranquil ease and content; you will find no alarms or disturbances:   Why then tell us of dangers to terrify us into an adoption of this new Government?  and yet who knows the dangers that this new system may produce; they are out of the sight of the common people:  They cannot foresee latent consequences:  I dread the operation of it on the middling and lower class of people:  It is for them I fear the adoption of this system.” – Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention, 8 June 1788