Posted on 8/7/2007, 7:21:56 PM by EternalVigilance
Part 10 of 'The Crisis of the Republic'
In the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I remember frequent talking-head discussions on the news and commentary shows that focused on what sacrifice of rights and liberties would be required to secure our people against the threat of terrorism.
As laws are passed against smoking, and others are considered to discourage the consumption of snacks laden with fat and sugar, the discussion focuses similarly on what sacrifice of rights and liberties will be required to combat the health risks to our people. With Al Gore and others assiduously campaigning to arouse concern about the deterioration of the global ecology, we likewise discuss what sacrifice of economic freedom we must make to save the planet from destruction.
Faced with the ever-increasing demands of welfare state politics, individual earners watch as their right and control over their income shrinks before the rising tide of taxation. It seems at times as if, very soon, the only liberties we will have left are the right to expect a government hand-out, the right to fornicate at will, and the right to kill any inconvenient progeny conceived as a result. Instead of citizens at liberty, we will be libertines with none.
Double-mindedness
The difficulty here is two-fold. To get elected, our leaders try to convince us that they can solve, or at least address, all our most urgent problems. But as they do, they pick and chop at the fruit, branches, and roots of liberty. Meanwhile, in most cases, the problems grow worse, despite or because of their efforts.
We're like the middle-aged man in Aesop's day, who thought he'd get more satisfaction with two wives than one. He chose an older woman to cook and keep the household in order, and a beautiful young woman for pleasure's sake. Being particularly proud that he still had a full head of hair, he made them promise that every day they would by turns carefully comb and brush it. But each tried to make him look more like herself. The young one wanted his hair to have the rich color of youth. So she plucked out his gray hairs. The older one preferred gray hairs that denoted greater maturity. So she plucked out the dark ones. Over time, they left him bald as a cue ball. As the saying goes, he went for wool and came back shorn.
If the American people are to avoid a similar fate, we need to resist political polygamy and hold fast to our one true love, which is the love of liberty. We must once again learn to recognize the difference between a one-issue candidate, and the statesman who remembers his sworn duty to the most important issue as he deals with all the rest. Instead of being seduced by politicos who promise solutions to every problem, we need to find leadership that will help us preserve and work through liberty to address every challenge.
Economic exploitation
In the fourth article in this series, we explored the consequences of this distinction with respect to our understanding and conduct of the war against terrorism. In the sixth article, we talked about the difference it makes when dealing with the defense of our borders and national sovereignty. But over the course of the last few decades in America, no issues have been more exploited by ambitious office seekers than those having to do with money and economic life.
Sometimes it's jobs; sometimes it's poverty; sometimes it's taxes. More often than not, it's the vicarious infighting of professional and business interests that live off government spending, or win or lose by government action. As the government's spending and regulatory role gets bigger, so does the intensity of political focus on the battle for control of its economic decisions.
For better or worse, government is often perceived as the single most influential participant in almost every area of economic activity. Politicians play on this perception as they try to stitch together winning electoral coalitions. One rouses the poor to focus on the need for more welfare spending. Another goads the aging to save their social security. The unemployed need jobs. The more employed need higher-paying jobs. The victims of malpractice need justice and compensation. The doctors need lower insurance rates. The hospitals need higher insurance payouts. The patients need lower drug and health care costs. We need higher spending on everything and lower taxes for everyone — except of course the Democrats, who get too much; the Republicans, who have too much; the special interests, who want too much; and the people, who care too little.
Though the dust never settles from all this politically-inspired squabbling, one thing has clearly continued to emerge through the fog of our political wars — a bigger government that ignores what it should maintain (such as the security of our borders); controls what it should ignore (such as the size of our incomes); breaks what it pretends to care for (such as the families of the poor); neglects to care for what it ought to fix (such as our bridges and levees); and seeks every kind of control except self-control (for us or itself.) Though divide-and-conquer politics is the order of the day, the political rhetoric drips with the milk of human kindness and overflows with pious exhortations to greater unity of purpose and hope. But how can people unite when those who offer themselves for leadership do so on a basis that ignores or denies the basis for their unity?
Paternalism
Our sworn commitment to maintain American liberty — that is, constitutional government of, by, and for the people — ought to be the unifying common ground of all political leadership in America. Given this commitment, the foundational aim of all economic policy ought to be to preserve and strengthen the people's capacity for self-government. The first concern of the statesman determined to preserve liberty is therefore what people can do, not what government can do for them.
Given the welfare-state mentality that has for many years dominated our political life, it's hard for some people even to hear these words, much less understand them. They are more comfortable with the seemingly caring and compassionate rhetoric that portrays society as a family, and government as the locus of parental responsibility in that family. According to this rhetoric, a good government cares for its people the way good parents care for their children — making sure that they have adequate housing and food; that they are usefully employed; that they have opportunities for amusement and recreation.
Some years ago, when my eldest child was in elementary school, I was asked to give a talk to his class about freedom. As I considered what I would say, I found myself in an awkward position. Both as a Christian and an American, I deeply believe that freedom is an essential aspect of humanity. Therefore, when we deny people their freedom, we are denying their humanity.
My son was around eleven years old at the time. Though my wife and I certainly didn't deny his freedom in principle, as a practical matter it was pretty seriously limited (i.e., he had every right to do as we pleased.) How could I go before his class and extol the virtues of something he wouldn't be enjoying fully for some years to come?
At length, I realized that the answer lay in the difficulty itself. I ended up beginning my talk by asking the class to imagine what life would be like if they were somehow forced to live as children for the rest of their lives. They might be well cared for, but they would never be able to make all their own decisions, or take full responsibility for their own actions. They would have everything they needed. They would even have toys and fun. But they would never really know their own strengths and weaknesses, or what it was like to achieve something because, or in spite, of them.
Children live under a benevolent despotism in the literal sense of the term. ("Despotism" comes from the ancient Greek word for head of the family or household.) When we accept the idea of society as a family and make government the locus of parental responsibility in that family, we accept a despotic concept of government.
Family-based economics
I realize that some of us (and perhaps, in some ways, all of us) are deeply attracted by the idea of life as perpetual, pampered children — our needs provided for; our minds and consciences relieved of concern about life's gravest responsibilities and decisions; our days devoted to self-exploration and fun. However, even aside from the ennui, the existential nausea that at length we would suffer in such a shadow-less existence, there is the harsh evidence of human history that governments made in the image of despotism simply don't remain benevolent for very long.
The natural bonds and inclinations of affection that may limit the abuse of power within families actually encourage such abuses when the sphere of despotic government is enlarged beyond its natural boundaries. Their tender regard for those they love as their own generally leads despots to disregard the lives, rights, and dignity of people who dwell outside the charmed circle of their affections.
The seemingly caring and compassionate idea that society is a family thus masks our return to an understanding of government that restores the legitimacy of all the forms of tyranny that have marred human happiness throughout history. I'm sure that some of the people who promote the welfare state mentality have good intentions. Human experience suggests, however, that those good intentions will ultimately be usurped by the domineering passions that have given despotic government in any form such a bad name. Still, as is often the case with well-intentioned errors, there is a hint of truth in the welfare demagogues' appeal to family as the paradigm of social life.
Of course, it's no more than manipulative sloganeering to call a society of hundreds of millions of people a family. But when it comes to caring for people, it's common sense to remember that the family is the primordial unit of human self-sufficiency. In the literal sense, it is the conceptual basis of economics. 
(The word "economy" comes again from ancient Greek. It is the compound of two words that refer to the custom or order of the household.) Contrary to the contrived notions often used to introduce people to the study of economics in the modern era, human society did not arise from the interaction of solitary "Robinson Crusoes" seeking to maximize selfish advantages. The dimmest memories of the earliest human times suggest that people have always lived in families, families that arise from the natural bonds and inclinations that lead to procreation and child-rearing.
If the natural family is the first context in which human beings recognize and care for one another as human beings, the family ought to be of great concern to anyone who cares about humanity. It must be of special concern to anyone who seeks to preserve human liberty, since people who cannot care for themselves will not have the wherewithal to sustain their claim to self-government.
For the adherents of liberty, preserving the nature, characteristics, and strength of family life thus emerges as the guiding concern for any discussion of economic issues. Let's see how this priority affects our view of the issues at stake in the election to come.
© 2007 Alan Keyes
bttt
ping
Great tagline!
One of the best summations of where we are as a nation I've seen.
Still the best candidate in the 2000 Republican Primary.
I think so too. He’s a national treasure.
The brilliance of Dr. Keyes, whom I am proud to hvae voted for, shines through again.
I also miss him on radio and TV.
He’s not dissin Fred again, is he? LOL
For better or worse, government is often perceived as the single most influential participant in almost every area of economic activity. Politicians play on this perception as they try to stitch together winning electoral coalitions. One rouses the poor to focus on the need for more welfare spending. Another goads the aging to save their social security. The unemployed need jobs. The more employed need higher-paying jobs. The victims of malpractice need justice and compensation. The doctors need lower insurance rates. The hospitals need higher insurance payouts. The patients need lower drug and health care costs. We need higher spending on everything and lower taxes for everyone — except of course the Democrats, who get too much; the Republicans, who have too much; the special interests, who want too much; and the people, who care too little.
Though the dust never settles from all this politically-inspired squabbling, one thing has clearly continued to emerge through the fog of our political wars — a bigger government that ignores what it should maintain (such as the security of our borders); controls what it should ignore (such as the size of our incomes); breaks what it pretends to care for (such as the families of the poor); neglects to care for what it ought to fix (such as our bridges and levees); and seeks every kind of control except self-control (for us or itself.)
Fred who?
Never heard of him...
;-)
Safer that way. ROFL!!
I would also recommend a thorough read of Keyes' previous column: Part 9: 'Abortion rights' and the moral threat to freedom
Some among us would prefer the voice of Alan Keyes is unheard. To those of compromised beliefs, his words of truth cut sharply to the core.
I quit following Alan Keyes when he supported reparations in the Illinois election.
Then why are you on this thread?
Oh, has Keyes announced?
Ha! Guess you don't want people to remember that Keyes flip flopped and supported reparations when he ran for the Senate from Illinois. Too bad.
“I quit following Alan Keyes when he supported reparations in the Illinois election.”
You might be right, but I remember it differently. I think he was trying to make a point and did not actually do a flip flop on his long standing position on this, which IIRC is that America has paid the debt of slavery with the blood of its countrymen.
Or something like that.
Greg
Oh. You mean you aren't following him, but you felt the need to seek out a thread with his name on it? That is curious.
Either:
Or:
This wasn't that long ago. Do you even remember that Keyes made an ill conceived run for a Senate seat from Illinois in 2004 or have you forgotten that too?
Alan Keyes supports … reparations?
LaShawn Barber took note of it too. Alan Keyes, Disgruntled Token?
Let's look at On The Issues and see what they say.
Income tax exemptions for descendants of black slaves For a certain length of time - a generation or two - [the Roman Empire] exempted the damaged city from taxation. One possible plan for reparations might be to exempt African-Americans of slave heritage from paying federal income tax since slavery resulted from "an egregious failure on the part of the federal establishment." Source: AgapePress.org, "Keyes' Reparations Reversal" Sep 1, 2004
Bottom line is there is no use to deny this if you are a Keyes fan as I once was. He lost me in that 2004 campaign because I don't believe in paying for something I didn't do. Now maybe you do and it doesn't bother you but don't pretend it didn't happen.
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.