Posted on 12/23/2006 12:29:02 PM PST by hubbubhubbub
A reader of this column recently asked what policies I'd recommend for the U.S. government. It is one thing to criticize policymakers. It is another thing to come up with constructive solutions. One of the reasons I don't generally offer solutions is my conviction that Western Civilization is approaching a dead end and must, therefore, turn around and go back to the last crossroad. The problem, however, is that very few people believe we're headed to a dead end. And no going back is possible until the dead end is actually reached, with all its attendant mayhem.
Over the past thousand years the West has "evolved" from the simple Iron Age economy of post-Roman feudalism to the ultra-complex global economy of today. This development occurred because economic freedom and governments with built-in checks and balances gave ordinary people a chance to build something for themselves and their posterity. But that wasn't all. Aristocratic and Christian idealism successfully mitigated the usual course of enslavement and pillaging. The lords and nobles of England, in particular, exercised a noble self-limitation (and constitutional restraint). Quite logically, the fastest development of wealth went to the freest and ablest societies, the ones least encumbered by tyrannical or rapacious overlords. England and its offshoot, the United States, were the leading countries in this process.
So why do I say that this process approaches a dead end?
My analysis has nothing to do with resource depletion, global warming or Marxian pauperization. We can all see that Western ideals of freedom have been eroding away. Welfare entitlements, environmentalism and wealth redistribution have proven irresistible. Liberty is giving way to regulation. The noble creed of aristocratic culture based on a mix of classical and Christian ideas has fallen before a demagogic cycle of political promises, a regime of gross flattery aimed at the common man, increased government bureaucracy, further promises, and further bureaucracy. The education system follows the logic of socialism, with a subtle tendency to indoctrinate the next generation. The economic system is Keynesian, with no long-term future and no guiding principle other than short-term enjoyment. Here the logic of Late Antiquity, with its emphasis on bread and circuses, finds its Electronic Age variant. The resulting culture presents us with a stupefied general public and a debased politics. Where there is a will to confront present dangers there is no wit. And more often than not there is neither the will nor the wit. When we look at immigration policy, trade and national security (particular pertaining to counterintelligence), the government will not admit that dangers threaten because democracy hasn't the stomach for tough decisions.
Obviously, this isn't Francis Fukuyama's "end of history." Modern man isn't so special, or so very clever. Our time is like countless others in which the price of folly is paid in blood and treasure. Under these circumstances we must discount what a patriot would like to do and consider what he can actually get away with. Everything depends on circumstance, and circumstances are going to change. And so it's a matter of the type of change we can expect. Take a look at the world today. The wolves are hungry and ready to pounce. The sheep are numerous and fat. The result of this situation is easy to predict. Furthermore, there is nothing to stop the logic of democracy from weakening civilization (i.e., the sheep); and as civilization weakens, there will be nothing to stop the barbarians (i.e., the wolves) from storming the gates as soon as the outward defenses are compromised.
Should we pray for a man on a white horse?
There are no more white horses, few men and no heroes in late capitalist politics. In the age of specialization the insects are firmly in charge. It is a hopping flea circus - broadcast live, with commentary from Gregor Samsa's kinfolk. Statesmanship has been set aside in favor of Lilliputian demagogues. Such are predicated on the language of ethnic resentment, class envy or environmentalist humbug. If the people know nothing of real dangers, the politicians know less. Jeff Stein recently interviewed the incoming head of the House Intelligence Committee, Sylvestre Reyes, for Congressional Quarterly. He asked Reyes whether al Qaeda was Sunni or Shiite. Reyes answered: "Predominantly - probably Shiite." When Stein asked about Hezbollah Reyes couldn't give an answer.
To be a policymaker today you don't have to know anything. All it takes is a teary eyed concern for a suffering planet and sacrificial victims like rich folk or Jews to placate an angry Gaia. Placebos are preferred to real solutions, since the political climber imagines that an ongoing crisis will clear his way to Olympus. Let's see how high the budget deficits will go. The sky is the limit, until the sky begins to fall. And let's see which political party is eager to commit suicide by taking away all the entitlements and benefits with the suggestion that "the people" take responsibility for themselves. To say there is a solution for a system so predicated would be, in plain truth, to utter an imbecility. We live well today, for the moment, because centuries of freedom are propelling us from behind.
So what is the solution for the young idealist sent to Congress by an electoral fluke? Like any condemned man there is only the option of a blindfold.
The trouble of our time can be spelled out in many ways. Simply put, socialism isn't dead, neither is the parasitism of its economics nor the tyrannical end point of its politics. The individual is weakened, the state is strengthened. The producer is punished, the parasite is fattened. Stupidity is flattered, intelligence is feared. From the supposed collapse of communism in Eastern Europe to the welfare sepulcher of Western Europe - the underlying theme is the same. And that theme is decline, senility and death.
To say the truth in these things is not defeatism. Who said the battle for liberty would be easy? Who misled us into thinking that history would consist of an uninterrupted string of glorious victories? Every struggle entails losses, and men must be strong enough to accept the worst as they struggle toward the best. If you cannot run, you walk. If you cannot walk, you crawl. If you cannot crawl, you wriggle. You fight on even if all around you have given up. Things are going to get very nasty before they get better. And don't expect a political leader to say anything truthful about the situation until our illusions are thoroughly extinguished.
You know this almost sounds like you can apply an analogy similar to the need that we shoud "rotate the crops" (fresh faces) because the soil (political landscape/Republican Party) is too nitrogenated or some other form of over-planting one type of crop, and the soil have not yet had a chance to even out the nutrients in itself...
We got to start planting this new crop of Republican CONSERVATIVES that are really looking to start drifting to a libertarian agenda...Which for some does not seem that un-attractive at this time...
If the leadership in the party wishes to continue on this path that led us to the '06 election results...And everyone who wishes to shake the tree a little bit before '08 by finding people who are willing to take up the torch and head us back on to the path of a Reagan type way to run the railroad...
I hope they start to accept this desire I see in many folks I hear wanting this type of direction and methodology...
Because the democrats (liberal/socialists) don;t give a rats if we get our act together...But they will certainly help us to keep the same old crop out there for them to bash every step of the way...
The problem with libertarianism or classical liberalism is that they do not allow for an agent of positive law, and can only be implemented under certain conditions and in specific periods. They may gain political momentum and power, but they are doomed to fail because of the real dialectics of the problem.
Societies evolve (or not) naturally. Any attempt to force society into some perverted illusion of an agricultural Jeffersonian republic, without reference to history, is just as inhuman as any brain-addled Utopian communist. And like the communist totally misses the real problem.
That is a well written piece. Thanks for posting it. My favorite line, because it is true:
"If the people know nothing of real dangers, the politicians know less."
Your comment was well thought out, but I disagree. I would agree if you were referring to 'anarchy' rather than libertarianism, because nearly all libertarians believe government must enforce basic property rights, with all equal in the eyes of the law.
Close to what I'm starting to think. Have to make a LOT of money and then hunker down.
That is only an element of positive law in so far as the creation of a police, the rules governing it, and the method for dealing with violators is concerned. But the "idea" of ownership is based on "natural law," not positive. That is, the "right to property" most classical liberals and libertarians consider to be part of "natural law" and favor the idea that government should be restricted legally to dealing only with such cases. Anything else would seem to be government establishing morality ex nihilo.
however on the other hand, if you believe that ownership of property is not a natural or moral reality than you have a point. But you'd be outside the grater majority of libertarian philosophers. It goes without saying that at times government will need to take a "positive" role in protecting rights or enforcing law, but the question is: weather that law shall be purely natural, thus giving government its justification for being in the un-anthropological notion of the "social-contract;" or: that at least some of government's role must be regulatory and positive, (thus requiring the moral justification through a sovereign authority).
Libertarians will reject that last part especially; and, relying solely on the "social contract," will create a system that is unchanging but is dependent on voluntary adherence. Such a system is unworkable, or rather would only be workable if everyone could agree on what is best and natural for society. It's a nice idea, and perhaps it is unfair that a few malcontents would, by mere virtue of their existence, bring down such a lovely house of cards, but then the universe is rarely accused of being fair.
I follow you on that...
So would it be accurate to state that libertarianism is simple too much of a swing of the pendulum as far as an alternative for conservatives to give much weight too???
Liberalism seems to operate best with frothing at the mouth or borderline anarchy of mindless, actually let me rephrase that, "focused" but mindless, followers???
I always thought, and will continue, to believe that conservatism in its nature is kind of fragmented as a concerted political movement in society...Of course it comes together when the effort, for lack o a better term is grounded on a grassroots "people in the precincts" type involvement...
I believe this is where we lost in '06...We were so fragmented, but still conservative, that what we had on ballots were so moderate and transparent, that we either held our nose to try to keep the liberals out of the majority (yeah that worked like a peach!) or stayed home...
Reagan tended to not have too much of a problem keeping the effort congealed, but we could opnly keep him around for 8 years...
President Bush did this by giving us something other than a Clinton coat tailer...And maintained it through '04...Barely...Simply because the conservative base saw the alternative as something this country didn't want or need...
Now we have a nightmare in the wings ready to screw things up after only 12 years of majority...I'm actually surprised that it lasted this long...
But the shining city is that we did bend the court a little more towards the right, and that may be a saving grace until a few of those older justices decide to get out, knowing their replacements will be pretty much to the left on the pendulum swing...I kinda wish we could have gottem at least one more in there from the appelate court bull-pen, before President Bush leaves...
Oh well soory for the verbose response...Heck, its Christmas!
Merry Christmas to all!!!
Political gain isn't my concern. Any ideology can gain popular support under the right conditions (though libertarianism is a little hard to make clear to enough people), the down side is that "any ideology can gain support under the right conditions."
Anyway we cut it we are still dependent on the random arrival of exceptional leaders, and in our case it's worse because our leaders not only have to be exceptional they have to appeal to an aggregate of the population. They have to be part idiot (read "simple straight shooter," "man like you and me," or "everyday Joe") part demagogue. That's why I don't like "grass-roots movements." No matter how necessary they may be for political victory they are nevertheless subject to all the dangers of a populist movement.
The problem as I see it is it takes an uncommon degree of intelligence and humility to vote for someone you truly believe might by smarter or more moral than you are. This is why we have mostly mediocrities for leaders. The accusation from libs that Reagan or Bush is an idiot I think only helped their reelections.
Merry Christmas to you, and don't let my pessimism get ya down. My distrust for democracy comes from my latent sympathy for monarchism. But that probably just makes me one of those useless people in our republic : \
I don't quite follow the importance of 'natural' vs 'positive law' as regardless of how a law is derived, it is. The debate is how many of these laws, positive or not, government should be passing.
"will create a system that is unchanging but is dependent on voluntary adherence. Such a system is unworkable, or rather would only be workable if everyone could agree on what is best and natural for society."
This is an accurate representation, but i disagree that it is 'unworkable', in fact, it has worked wherever (and to whatever degree) it has been tried. There is a book called 'wisdom of the crowds', which describes how collective decisions are often better than that even of 'experts', folksy or not :). When government is left out of the equations, the people fashion their own systems, based on the market and raw capitalism. I think the record shows people are quite generous in aiding those who are unfortunate. In addition, we need to look at the alternative, if the people are not making decisions than it must mean someone else is, if we are to have laws. Elitists are no better, indeed, they are worse at making decisions than the population is collectively. And as far as deviant social behaviors, IMO, society must be willing to tolerate these folks as any attempt to reign them in will only increase their numbers. You might be interested in these:
http://www.neoperspectives.com/foundingoftheunitedstates.htm
http://www.neoperspectives.com/Social_Conservativsm.htm
Well, if anything, you have sparked some thought in me that would not have come out if I had not somehow been intrigued and challenged by yours, and a couple more folks comments here on this thread...
Apathy towards "grassroots" is surprising...And partiality to a monarchism lean is more intriguing than offending...Don't worry at all about that...Monarchies in recent history have accepted a "figure head" type role in most civilized countries and work with the established democratic representation, that in turn, work with us pretty well in my opinion...
What I tend to do is "prioritize my principles" (sounds like a compramise, but its not) and apply my political party affiliations by and of those who best agree with "my" political positions on issues...I have also grown out of being a one or two "push button" issue type person to more of a position that applies a "conservative" template to issues and projects...It just seems to keep me from running with blinders on every election cycle here, and helps me not be so blind-sided by things that creep up during those times, so I best know how to weed through the riff-raff of political hacks that choose to be passionate about just one or two "election year" issues, and those campaigns that are better versed in many of them...
So my party affiliation is not based upon just being a "part" of a group or organization, but one based upon that who believes more like I do...Its basically that simple...
In recent history, the "independent" candidate seems to be a trend that hopefully will die a quick death...You only have to look at a candidates previous affiliation to know if they are running on principle or vanity because "their" party of choice has divorced or distanced themselves from the candidate...I find all of that distracting and keeps the candidate more focused upon how to woo the voters, rather than come down firm on principles and positions so that ALL of the voters can make a better, more informed choice...
Just take a look at what I and many others had to deal with in Texas Congressional District 22 (Tom DeLays old seat) and you can see where we had a difficult time in delaying the inevitable and losing to an "arse" (pardon the pun)...
I'll check back in tomorrow or early this week and see what we still have cooking here in this thread...
I enjoy your input...You can FReepmail me if you think it'll let the thread die off, because I think most are bored with it...I'm not, but ya know...hehehe
So my party affiliation is not based upon just being a "part" of a group or organization, but one based upon that who believes more like I do...Its basically that simple...
That is an honest approach to the democratic party system. But, I don't believe it can compete, in the long run, with a more aggressive and disciplined approach to party politics. What gives power in democracy is large groups or organizations. Or, more importantly, great and terrible ideas that attract the masses. Against which individuals (a term which means after all only the smallest division of a larger group) struggle in vain.
I'm not enthusiastic about constitutional monarchy either because of the tendency (as Plato observed) for governments and societies to degrade over time. Thus it will probably lead to popular republicanism eventually anyway.
I should say rather that I'm suspicious of democracy even as a mere means of government. Usually it becomes a 'means' to and end; that end being not good government but idealistic pseudo-religious democracy, which is really just egotistic nostraism. The Founding Fathers for example were generally suspicious of democracy, which is why they engineered all kinds of checks and balances into it. To them it was just a means to an end.
"Ideological Democracy" of course I absolutely detest as inherently amoral and unchristian. It is the belief, not that the majority is always right, but rather that it IS right because it IS the majority. It is essentially 'might makes right' expressed as a numbers game.
But there is no escape from these ideological implications because you frequently have to invoke the ideology in order to gain political strength, even if your goals are purely democratic methodology and not messianic majoritarianism.
Like the popular decision to crucify a man, or make another drink hemlock. It has been said that Western civilization is [was?] founded on two individuals, both murdered by a collective decision.
I've never heard of the book you referenced but if you believe that collectives make better decisions on average than experts than the next time you are sick, you should let friends and neighbors practice quackery on you rather than see a doctor.
Their is another book called "Democracy in America," its by a Frenchman, but it's generally considered a classic and a must read (of course no one ever does). In the second volume the author describes at length why art in democratic societies tends to be mediocre at best. On the subject of literature he points out that books will be written for that masses by people who know how to write for the masses. History, science, and even poetry will devolve into ego stroking for the majority and take the individual human out and replace it with the omnipotence of the majority ironically at the same time individualism is lauded as a trait unique to "our special group, collective, orginization."
I have a question... if collective decisions truly are better than those of individuals, why are ships captained by an officer and not by a referendum of the whole crew?
Of course I'm of the opinion that there really is no such thing as a "collective decision." Anthropomorphizing whole groups of individuals is bordering idolatry and is at the very least an abomination. At least, in nature anything with more than one head is usually considered as such.
Sorry for any errors in this post, it's 3:30 am right now for me, and it feels a lot latter than that. I do love the holidays though ;).
I agree, I do believe my phylosophy cannot compete in this form either...
But for the term democracy, I would like to point out that it is not this form of government, it is a representative republic...
And with all you have stated very well, I do believe that government should be cyclic in nature...It will have its highs and lows depending on where you stand phylisophically, right???
Right now the conservative movement, how ever brief it was in the majority is now heading down to an low ebb in the political tide...The liberal freakshow is now on the rise...
So...What do we do??? We do what we've always done...Whine and moan, and hope that a new crop of fodder is presented to us that doesn't insult our political intelligence...We went for just a bit too long holding our noses when we pulled the lever, or tapped the screen, or spun the wheel this last election...
Time to regroup, make our moves politically, and get ready for another trouncing in '08...Hopefully not too much of a trouncing...To which there are going to be some well predicted surprises in '08, which will benefit the other side of the coin again that time...
Sorry for being the soothsayer of ill, but in reality I am hoping I am wrong...I really do...
The only thing that seems to energize and get a collective movement in the "conservative" ideology in this country seems to be...
Do we really want another Clinton in office???
Just like the other side said at one time, do we want another Bush in office???
Almost a ying and yang feel to it!
I really believe that it will barely be solved by 2010 or 2012 for the conservative movement in this country, and one that I am always hoping I am wrong that no country aligned with us is hit hard by any terroristic threat thinking they are free to roam while liberal politics is in power...
Thats pretty much my bottom line...
Thanks BarbaricGranduer for helping me get my silly head on straight...I may still need some work, but hopefully I am heading in the right direction!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.