Tea Parties

There were more tea parties last week and they are now getting some push back from the left.

So what do I think about them? The parties themselves have been focusing on taxes and of course the left is focusing on that. And even when spending is raised, the left counters by asking where "we" were when the Bush administration was spending. Granted, I would argue that many of us were complaining about Bush's spending. Porkbusters for one flashed across the sky like a meteor, even getting under Trent Lott's skin. But while I see occasional references here and there, the whole Porkbusters "movement" just died out.

But further on spending, while Bush was spending too much (and the GOP in the early 2000s was using pork to solidify its position), the "stimulus" act has exploded the deficit. No one read the bill before passage. President Obama reneged on his promise for a public review period for all bills, so no one really read the thing before signing. And while much in the act is probably defensible and good, most of these items should have gone through the regular appropriations process.

This may sound strange, but the whole thing leaves me a little depressed (and generally, I do not believe in getting depressed on matters political). For one thing, as a conservative, I really don't DO the whole protest thing. Other than the tea party a few months ago and the occasional political rally, I have not been to a protest since I don't know when.

But my main concern is more philosophical. My complaint is not really with the taxes but the spending. And not really the spending but about the feeling that the relationship between the people and the state was perhaps irrevocably changing. It has been moving that way for a while, but it seems now to be accelerating.

I am not sure what if anything will come out of the tea parties. But the GOP needs to be kept out. The GOP's hunger for political power through earmarks and pork have helped get us to this point. The GOP needs to prove it can be trusted again on fiscal matters and they are for from proving to me (I am not longer a registered Republican, my disgust raised so high). Some argue the tea parties can turn into a third party, but I doubt it.

If anything, the parties can at least slow down the drift to a managerial state.

A Swiss Ski Slope as a Metaphor for Conservatism

As I was skiing, dodging snowboarders, I was reminded of something that first crossed my mind in 1996. On January 1, 1996, I was hit in the head by a snowboarder. And it hit me -- a ski slope is the perfect metaphor for the conservative movement.

Stay with me here a minute.

The skiers are like the traditional conservatives. You ski basically the same way you did in 1900, though the equipment is updated and better. Change tends to come slowly and in an evolutionary manner. And the skiers are used to being the ones for a long time to be skiing around.

The snowboarders represent the libertarians. Brash, not really into the old rules but like to make them up as they go along.

The problem is that both groups have to share the same ski slope. And they both are looking to get to the same place. But they have a tendency to get on each other's nerves and each other's way.

Granted, this breaks down a bit. I cannot fit the social conservatives into the mix. As for the neoconservatives, I figure they are the guys on the anti-avalanche patrol shooting off cannons every now and them to move snow.

Let's Have a Tea Party!

I went to the NYC Tea Party yesterday. The tea parties have been held around the country to protest the stimulus bill. The parties seem somewhat small right now, and amateurish. The one I attended in New York had a bunch of people in City Hall Park listening to a series of folks speaking through a megaphone.

The crowd was maybe about 150-200, though to be sure, I am poor at judging these sorts of things. It did not seem angry and in fact was more light hearted. I did see quite a few Ayn Rand acolytes and Ron Paul supporters. The only angry guy I saw was an anti-immigration type wondering about.

Many of the signs were based on the principle of the stimulus bill leading to socialism. My favorite sign was "Pork -- the other red meat."

OK -- it is a beginning. Conservative/libertarian protests rarely come close to the protests the left is able to put together. Mostly I think it is cultural. The American right tends to be more individualistic and somewhat distrustful of protests. Protests too uncomfortably look like mobs.

Further, as PJ O'Rourke used to say "conservatives have jobs" and generally have better things to do other than stand around listening to people complain. They would rather sit at home and watch basketball or spend time with family.

Also, conservatives do not have groups that exist to organize action. The Left has ACORN and an array of activist groups. They call a meeting and within a day have professionally printed signs and rhyming chants. Conservative groups tend to be more like think tanks, and unfortunately, lobbying groups. Not as much street action oriented.

And yes, I would argue that much of that cultural difference is good. We do not think everything revolves around politics. Which is probably why the only major "right" protests tend to be ones that the churches are involved in -- most importantly abortion. But the churches have their own agendas and cannot really be considered part of the Right (though the more churchgoing you are the more likely you are on the right). The Catholic Church for example helps get the annual March for Life protests going, yet it also was the force behind the immigration marches (at least initially).

The rally was mostly positive and lighthearted. There was a Minuteman type running around. But the crowd seemed a mix of conservatives and libertarians, with Ron Paul supporters and Ayn Rand disciples sticking out.

So what do I believe?

So, on the night before a presidential election in which I expect my preferred candidate to lose badly, what do I believe? Sometimes, only tongue partially in cheek, I describe my personal politics as being "three martinis away from anarchism." And by anarchism, I mean the individualist anarchism of Spooner, Tucker and Nock, not the blag flag folks running through the streets trashing Starbucks to protest corporate globalism.

Thanks to the fusioniss whereby National Review back in the 1950s brought together traditional conservatives and libertarians, American conservatism is very different from conservatism elsewhere in the world. To begin with, American conservatism grew mostly out of Whig roots. It is no accident that Russell Kirk began his book "The Conservative Mind" with Edmund Burke, England's great Whig political philosopher. The Tory roots of English conservatism hold some influence, but are overwhelmed by the Whig roots. The more authoritarian strains of continental conservatism are thankfully generally subsumed by Whiggery.

The second great influence on American conservatism is of course libertarianism. Libertarianism has as a root the individual anarchist of the 19th Century. It is ironic of course because in theory, conservatism is the opposite of anarchy. My cousin, who probably could have been considered a Marxist in her youth, was surprised that I mentioned Spooner in conversation, she thought Spooner was only a hero to the left.

So where does that leave me, a conservative libertarian the day before Election Day, 2008? I think the words of President Reagan, turned the Winthrop's "city on a hill" to a "shinning city":

I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how
I saw it and see it still.

So that is how I see it. I believe in the ingenuity and commerce of the American people. I believe that yes the city has walls, but also gates, and that those gates remain open. Reagan supported amnesty for illegal aliens, and while he believed in defending America, he never wanted to shut it out from those who sought her out. He believed in trade but most of all, in believed in the American people.

That is what I believe.

Isabel Paterson

I have become interested in Isabel Paterson. She was one of the three founders of the modern libertarian movement (along with Ayn Rand and Rose Wilder Lane). Unfortunately, she is somewhat forgotten today.

I came across Wendy McElroy's review of "The Woman and the Dynamo" by Stephen Cox. McElroy notes that Paterson was an important novelist yet unlike the her left wing contemporaries, is little remember today, even in libertarian (and broader conservative) circles.

So, why is Paterson so obscure today? McElroy thinks it is because in libertarian circles at least, novelists have not been as well regarded as professors. While I agree (despite the fact that Rand and Heinlein were both novelists), I think there is another important reason. Ayn Rand had her Objectivist movement. Rose Lane had the Freedom School and she acted as grandmother to the Libertarian Party. Hayek, Mises, and Rothbard had organizations devoted to their ideas. And of course Milton Freedom had the ear of presidents and a network of disciples on economics faculties across the world.

Paterson, on the other hand, was in many ways a lone wolf and most of her work was in a newspaper that ceased publishing 45 years ago. Each time she did try to collaborate, it ended badly. Russel Kirk, William F. Buckley and most famously Ayn Rand all were influenced by her, but she was unable to work with them. They all went onto greater fame, but Paterson remains sadly obscure. Hopefully, that will change (now more than ever).

EDITED Welcome fans of Wendy McElroy. I have learned my lessen and promise not to post typo ridden blog entries in the middle of the night. Look around, and make sure you read more about Isabel Paterson!

The Death of Conservatism?

In his latest Derb Radio, NRO's John Derbyshire argues, among other things, that conservatism is dead.

I agree with him. In the end, it is the fault of us conservatives ourselves. Why? Because the GOP, which was supposed to be the standard bearer of conservatism, decided the K Street Project was more important than principles.

It is not all George Bush's fault. Yes, he threw money at everything and had a program for every ill. As for Iraq, he went to war without being serious about it. But it comes down really to us ourselves.

I have decided in the end I can be a Republican or a conservative, not both. So I have decided to be a conservative. The role of conservatives for the next 25 years or so will be to stand athwart history shouting stop, instead of trying for actual power itself.

A Quote I Like

"I will not cede more power to the state. I will not willingly cede more power to anyone, not to the state, not to General Motors, not to the CIO. I will hoard my power like a miser, resisting every effort to drain it away from me. I will then use my power, as I see fit. I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth. That is a program of sorts, is it not? It is certainly program enough to keep conservatives busy, and liberals at bay. And the nation free." – William F. Buckley, Up From Liberalism

William F Buckley

William F. Buckley, the father of the conservative movement in America died today. I never met him, but I owe much of my political beliefs to him. For not only did he create a conservative movement purged of the paranoid anti-Semitic ranting of the Old Right, he help create the fusionism between traditional conservatives and libertarians that created the unique philosophy which is American conservatism (as I consider myself a conservative AND a Catholic libertarian, he showed the way).

He was not perfect. It took National Review too long to accept color blindness as the way to address race in America. That tardiness clearly harmed conservatism's appeal to minorities. And at times, his intelligence could be confused for elitism or arrogance. But he bequeathed to America an intellectual conservatism that, while clearly in trouble today has gone from a fringe movement to one of the mainsprings of American politics.

In college, reading National Review was like engaging in some sort of subversive activity. We would get the new issue, hide in some obscure corner of the library, and read it while we took turns as look outs, or so it seems in hindsight. Of course, it was never quite that way. By the time I entered college, Ronald Reagan had twice been elected president, the second time in a landslide. Conservatives had gone from being marginal figures to running the country, though of course, on campus, we were something of an oddity. But it is fun to remember it as such.

He was known for his speech and boy how he spoke. Here he is on election night, 1968.

(HT Ann Althouse)

Granted, a few months earlier Vidal and Buckley got into a shouting match on live t.v. during the 1968 Democratic Convention (Vidal called Buckley a "crypto Nazi" to which Buckley responded by threatening to punch Vidal in his "God damned face!"). That probably explains why they were in different locations.

Why can't we get political coverage like this today? Instead, today we get talking points and shouting and Ann Coulter. Ultimately, the problem with Coulter is a problem with my fellow conservatives more and more these days. We USED to seek out the intellectual high ground. Now, it seems we are in a race to the bottom with the Michael Moores and Ted Ralls. Who can be more outrageous? Who can sell more books?

Where is the William Buckley or George Will for the next generation? Instead of Russell Kirk or Irving Kristol we are getting mediocrities dressed up in drag. In the spirit of Mencken we have Steyn and O'Rourke to be sure, but where will the intellectual foundation for the next 20 years come from?

I see the same happening on the other side. The great social critics on both sides are either gone (Buckley, Mailer, Hunter S. Thompson) or old (Chomsky, Buchanan). And yes, most of them are annoying (Mailer was a psycho and Thompson probably insane). But they were intelligent and thought provoking. In their place we have mediocrities.

Farewell WFB.

The Ron Paul Affair

I have not said anything regarding the Ron Paul Affair. The newsletters were obscure for the most part, though the issue was first raised by a Congressional opponent several years ago. At the time, it seemed like a one time screw up but New Republic has shown that the newsletters were an ongoing activity.

I do not think Ron Paul is a racist. And I accept his statement that someone else wrote the newsletters and he had little input or control. But he was indifferent to what was said in his name and showed poor judgment and poor management.

This leads to a larger question though -- namely, has the Ron Paul campaign been good or bad for the libertarian movement in America. Paul was NEVER going to be the GOP nominee. But Paul wants to talk about the fiscal policy and constitutionalism and changing American foreign policy. I had hoped that lead to a widening of the debate.

Instead, however, libertarianism again is shown to be a strange and alien political philosophy. I have never been a "movement" libertarian. Mostly, I think, this is due to the fact that libertarianism tends to shade off into strange places. It has always been more comfortable to consider myself a conservative for that reason.

The Paul campaign has again lead libertarianism down this road. Paul's supporters have a tendency to get in your face. And he has attracted a motley crew of 9/11 Truthers, new world order conspiracy theorists and other marginal types to his campaign. Even the "Don't Tase Me bro" guy is a Paul supporter.

This newsletter affair seems to go beyond the one article that has been discussed. Basically, you have a guy making money using his name to sell newsletters that contain things that are considered outside the realm of polite society. The articles are unsigned and give the impression that he either wrote them (which he did not) or that he gave his seal of approval.

I do not believe in censorship of ideas. Paul and his supporters can say what they feel like until they are blue in their collective faces. But this is yet more proof that Paul was the wrong champion of libertarian ideas in this election.

The Water Board Right

Every time I figure that Andrew Sullivan has jumped the shark, National Review comes through and points out why I still read him. Especially the increasingly unhinged Kathryn Jean Lopez. I am a McCain supporter since 1999 and I know that he has done some things that annoyed many in the GOP and conservative base. While I agree with him on immigration, I understand his position he lost him support. I also have come to believe that campaign finance reform has made things worse. Yet McCain is still the guy who has fought earmarks, someone who is not against lowering taxes, just wants to control spending first, and is pro-life.

But Lopez's comment: "But on a whole host of issues — including water boarding, tax cuts, and the freedom of speech — he’s not one of us."

OK, you can argue with him on tax cuts, you can argue with him on campaign finance reform (which is what she means on freedom of speech). But suddenly, support for water boarding is necessary to get the support of conservatives? And if we see McCain as the GOP nominee, does this mean they will not support him? Would they rather see HRC (who is a cynical paranoid) or Senator Obama (who may be honorable, but is too naive to be president) just because they like water boarding?

Is this what the conservative coalition has come too -- water boarding and tax cuts uber alles?

Why I am a Republican

Stephen Bainbridge wonders why he is a Republican (and seems to conclude he is not). (HT instapundit.com)

As for me, I describe my political beliefs and their sources as follows (with apologies to French author Chateaubriand):

I am a Republican out of honor (and genetics)
A libertarian out of reason
A conservative out of taste and temperament.

Libertarians and libertarians

Libertarians have always been divided into BIG L libertarians (i.e., members of the Libertarian Party) and small l libertarians (i.e., believers in libertarianism as a philosophy). Most libertarians are found outside of the Libertarian Party for several reasons. Most importantly, the Libertarian Party is extremely ineffective and is the province mostly of people who place ideological purity over getting things done.

Thanks in large part to the fusionist movement of Frank Meyer and the early National Review, libertarians are usually associated with the conservative movement, and hence the Republican Party. I for example, have only rarely voted for the Libertarian Party, and usually because the GOP candidate was extremely odorous.

Steven Green of Vodka Pundit (who I suppose will be dealing with the upcoming Clinton Administration the way I plan to) blogged on why he is no longer a Libertarian (though presumably still a libertarian). Glenn Reynolds noted the essay on Pajama Media and pretty much said he felt the same way. This leads to a bunch of other confessions, and Andrew Sullivan blame the lot of them for destroying liberal democracy in America by supporting Bush (OK, maybe a slight exaggeration). Green posts his reply, explaining the difference between Big and little "l" libertarians.

I have always been a Republican, even as my political philosophy has drifted. I have never been a member of the Libertarian Party. While I wish them well, I view them basically as an out for people like me to indicate my displeasure with the GOP. My main problem with the Libertarians goes back to college. It seemed that self-described libertarians were more interested in fighting arcane inter-fraternal philosophical battles rather than discussing real world policy choices. It is like when back during the Nixon Administration, Milton Friedman found himself in conflict with libertarian leaders such as Karl Hess III because Friedman was more interested in guiding policy than fighting losing battles.

Libertarians and Public Morals

Despite the old fusionism between conservatives and libertarians, one major point on contention between the two groups is partly how to deal with public morals. Jonah Goldberg raises the issue today on NRO -- namely, how should one deal with Madonna or Pamela Anderson? Goldberg, who is not usually considered a traditional or social conservative, is worried, rightly, about how society looks to people whose actions are not exactly up to norms.

I am a self described Catholic Libertarian. While that seems contradictory, I agree with 90% of what social conservatives worry about.

The difference is how to answer. I am all for ME complaining about Madonna's behavior. I am against the GOVERNMENT doing something about it. My belief is that the decline of civil society and standards is not because of government inaction but rather a result of government action (economic and moral) that takes away individual responsibility. If you ignore celebrities, they eventually will act decent or otherwise go away.

So let's address the decline of public morals and civil society by addressing ourselves first.

What Libertarians Want

There has always been a tension within the conservative movement between libertarians and traditional (and now social) conservatives. Libertarians tend to be against government "interference" in personal affairs, while conservatives are willing to allow government intervention to protect societal values. This tension has been around since the early days of the modern conservative movement, and was played out initially with in the pages of "National Review". This tension continues today, as noted on the pages of Instapundit and Classical Values.

I think the problem is one of perception. I generally worry about the same things that social and traditional conservatives worry about. I do worry that our culture is degrading. While I self describe myself as a libertarian, I am also Catholic. I have one wife and view that as a permanent arrangement (one woman in my life is tough enough, why do some people want more?). Other than the glass of wine with dinner, I am not running around trying to score substances. I avoid most t.v. as it is a sewer.

But I believe that much of the cause is the increased role of government in our lives. Increasing government's role will exacerbate, not solve the problem. When people began to see government as the be all and end all, personal responsibility disappears. And if you try and regulate your way to virtue, you send up with hypocrisy and depravity.

Isabel Paterson

I have become extremely interested of late in Isabel Paterson. Paterson is one of founders of modern American libertarianism. A prominent literary critic who used weekly book review column in the New York Herald Tribune "Books" supplement to take on the status quo, she was a contemporary of H.L. Mencken and Rose Wilder Lane, editor of humorist Will Cuppy, mentor to Ayn Rand and correspondent to Russell Kirk and William F. Buckley. She is unfortunately somewhat forgotten today. Unlike her contemporaries, she was not a joiner -- Rand had her Objectivist movement while Lane was active at the libertarian Freedom School. Paterson simply had her column. Hence, she did not leave behind a phalanx of disciples to popularize her work.

Besides being a critic she also was a writer herself. Her sole nonfiction book, "The God of the Machine" was in some ways the starting point for modern American libertarianism. Ayn Rand told Paterson that the book "does for capitalism what Das Kapital does for the Reds and what the Bible did for Christianity." Paterson also wrote historical novels where kings were the villains and merchants the heroes.

To Paterson, society was simply the transmitter of energy -- the energy of commerce and creativity. Many things, overburdening government, grasping nobles, a society based on status, central planning, Bolshevism, or fascism, were items that slowed down the transmission of energy. Paterson is of interest to me because she did not see liberty as being in opposition to faith. In fact, she felt quite the opposite -- that Christianity helped to set free the energies of Europe. While recognizing that Europe in the Middle Ages was a status bound society based on serfdom, she believed that Christian philosophy was one of the basis for freedom (Paterson was not a Christian herself, but is rather better considered a Deist).

Unfortunately, the only works of Paterson that seem to be in print are "The God of the Machine" and one of her later experimental novels. Her Tribune columns and her early novels are hard to find. In addition, there is an excellent biography of her, "The Woman and the Dynamo" by Steven Cox. Hopefully, a few of her earlier novels might come back into print.

"Conservative Libertarianism"

When asked to describe my politics, I say I am a "conservative libertarian." So what does that mean? My usual explanation is that while I think marijuana should be legal, I do not think you should enjoy smoking it.

Generally, I consider myself a "fusionist." I share many of the concerns of traditional conservatives. I worry that civil society is failing and that traditional values are under attack.

Where I differ from traditional conservatives is in the cause and solution. Traditional conservatives, especially in the Bush years, have begun to believe that the way to protect traditional values is through government action. I, however, believe that much of the reason for the decline in values is government intervention itself. When the government promises much, people can walk away from their individual responsibilities. And the more government promises, the more government tries to socially engineer results. And as government usually lacks flexibility, as programs become centralized in Washington, we see one size fits all solutions.

Hence, I believe that the best way is to generally let people find their own way. Government should be limited and any government action (such as what we probably will see on health care in the next administration) should provide the maximum flexibility and choices to individuals. To stick with the health care example, we should see a system that retains most of the elements of the current system, but is tailored to provide choices to those earning too much for Medicaid but not receiving employer health insurance. Single payor, under which every person in America is insured by a federal government program, would be a disaster.

(Of course, if I were a pure libertarian I would say government should have no role in health care, but if the democratic process wants it, at least I can try and push for what I believe is the best system).

Jim Gilmore

Jim Gilmore has dropped out of the race for president.

Don't feel so bad, he was my governor and attorney general and I voted for him in 1997, and I still needed to look up who he was.

Then it came back to me. He was a decent conservative Republican, more conservative than the GOP as a whole (as is most of Virginia) but without the hint of Confederate nostalgia that you get from fellow Virginian George Allen. When Allen and Santorum lost their Senate races, there seemed to be an opening for a social conservative in the Republican presidential race. Gilmore and Brownback would seem to have the field to themselves, yet neither has developed any momentum or following. Romney has become by default the social conservative candidate, though he is a strange choice.

Perhaps social conservatives are too demoralized or maybe Republicans want to win. Maybe they are waiting for Fred Thompson (who is also a strange choice for a social conservative champion). In any case, the McCain is losing steam, Thompson is sort or in sort of out, and Giuliani seems a strange choice for the GOP. That leaves a big opening for Romney, but it is a long way to next summer's convention.

Ann Coulter is an Embarrassment

For some reason, Ann Coulter has become the "it" girl of conservatives. Why? She is an embarrassment to the right in this country. She is obsessed with John Edwards and not in a good way. There is much to dislike about Edwards. He comes across as an empty suit at times and seems more fluff than substance. I dislike most of his politics and looking at his new home, I think we figured out where the "Second America" went.

Yet this is a man who faced some terrible times with his family, losing a son and dealing with his wife's cancer. He did not run away from his responsibilities I may not want him to be president, but he is by all accounts a great husband and father. In my mind that is the best thing you can say about a man.

So we then come to Ann Coutler. The "faggot" remark to the American Conservative Union and her statements about Edwards dead son -- is she really that callous? Which is why I am glad Elizabeth Edwards called Hardball and had a few words for Coulter. Andrew Sullivan called it a wonderful moment, but I am not so sure. As the father of two small boys, I could not imagine anything wonderful about burying one of them.

I find it sad, that one of conservatism's standard bearers acts as she does. Sullivan thinks of her of as "performance art". I wonder if she is a left wing mole. I mean, has she been sent to infiltrate conservatism to make us look bad? She has replaced intelligent argument with hyperbole and reason with irrationality. She sells lots of books, but does conservatism no favors.

Trads and Rads

The American conservative movement since World War Two has been described as a fusion between traditional conservatives and libertarians. In the 1950s that made real sense -- liberty was seen as under threat at home by the growing welfare state and abroad by communism. The marriage was an imperfect one but despite skeptics (such as Ayn Rand or Russel Kirk), the coalition lasted. With the destruction of the old liberal consensus by Ronald Reagan and the fall of the Soviet Union, those old ties began to loosen, though the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress temporarily stopped the break. But under the weight of Iraq, increasing spending, and government intervention, the old fissures are showing.

An exchange between my old neighbor Rod Dreher and Andrew Sullivan show the fissure. Dreher is an ex-Catholic self described "crunchy con" -- a real traditional conservative. Andrews Sullivan is a self described libertarian. The two have little in common -- Dreher is very concerned about public morality while Sullivan (though Catholic) tends to call anyone more concerned with public morality than he is a "Christianist." Yet they both consider themselves "conservatives."

Dreher notes that both libertarians and traditional conservatives fear excessive concentration of power in the state. To him, the difference is that libertarians want maximum liberty while traditionalists want "free people living virtuously". Sullivan counters that he wants free people living virtuously too, he just does not want to control them (or more precisely, control their sex lives -- with Sullivan, it usually comes down to sex).

I believe that they both somewhat miss the point. I ask, can someone be virtuous if virtue is enforced? Inherent in Sullivan's beliefs (I believe) is that if you enforce sexual mores, it simply pushes the immoral stuff underground, where it gets really nasty and really immoral. And if I understand Sullivan correctly, I think he has a point there.

But suppose that is wrong. Suppose you could enforce perfect virtue. If the virtue police could go around and really force people to not engage in immoral activities, are those people virtuous or simply scared of the law? Or is virtue really a function of freedom -- that you have the freedom to do something legal but immoral BUT CHOOSE not to do it. For me, that is the measure of virtue.