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 Few Thoughts on Dynasties in Politics

America likes to think it is a Republic. Our president and legislature is elected and the hereditary principle has no place in our body politic.

Yet, right now, the choices for my new Senator seem to be the daughter of a president and the son of a governor.

I am not sure exactly what Caroline Kennedy has done to think she should be a Senator. Yet, American politics is filled with mediocrities who thought that they should be elected and used money and family connections to get there. What I think has struck a nerve here is the feeling of entitlement that Ms. Kennedy exudes with little to really back it up other than her name and some vague commitment to the correct causes over the years. While Andrew Cuomo may be unliked in many quarters (he comes off as abrasive at times), he has been a cabinet secretary and has run for office (he is currently Attorney General). He at least has put himself and his views out there. If Ms. Kennedy feels she will be a good Senator, run for it.

I really do not care much either way, no matter who Governor Patterson appoints is unlikely to agree with my beliefs -- so a Kennedy or a Cuomo, if I really had to choose, I'll go with Andrew Cuomo, as at least he has been in the arena.

But that got me thinking, (small r) republican theories aside, political dynasties have always been a part of American politics. From the very beginning, the Adams family was central in American politics. In New York, the Clinton family was prominent. Are political dynasties undemocratic and unrepublican?

I recently finished reading Polybius's Histories which examined Mediterranean history (focusing on Rome and Greece) for the period from about 290 BC to 140 BC. Polybius, though Greek, lived in Rome for much of his life and was a friend to many in the Roman elite. And one thing that struck me was that many of the names in the various eras were the same. Rome at this period was a Republic and while at the beginning of the era still technically confined to Latinum, the beginnings of the empire were taking shape. So granted, Rome was drawing from a small pool of possible leaders, but still, you would think that more new families would appear.

Roman history is often taught as a conflict between the patricians and the plebeians. It is true that in the early days of the Republic there were real differences between the two orders, as the Republic progressed, the distinctions disappeared. By Caesar's day, the real difference was that certain offices were reserved to members to each order (most importantly, the "Tribune of the People," who held the vital veto power, had to be a plebeian). Some patricians became poor and their families faded into obscurity. Some plebeians became rich and their families prominent.

In Rome, therefore, the real distinction was between those whose families had members elected consul and those who had not. As the Republic disintegrated, "new men," those whose families had not included consuls, became more and more rare. When the great Cicero was elected consul in 63 BC, he was the first new man in more than 30 years. I have felt that this lack of new blood was one of the causes of the downfall of the Republic. People began to enter politics to advance their family interests rather than out of public service. We should keep that concern in mind.

What do we do now? Part 1

We lost. No doubt about it. As I sit in Newark Airport right now, siting next to me, there is a 20 something who looks like he has not slept in weeks wearing a tee shirt that says Planetarians for Obama.

Don't ask, I have no idea.

So, after an extremely disappointing night, what does a conservative do?

Cry?

Yell?

Pack his or her bags and move to Turks & Caicos?

Let's begin with some perspective -- the sun rose this morning.

There will be lots of post mortems on the election. But we can start with this. John McCain thought this was going to be an election about national security. Barrack Obama got his initial excitement going by calling for a withdrawal from Iraq.

In the end, did anyone really talk about Iraq or national security at all? Not really. It was "THE ECONOMY STUPID" come back from 1992. Senator McCain was completely unprepared to address it. Senator Obama, surrounded by bobos, was. And when McCain finally was forced to address the economy, he fumbled badly. It was not his fault really. No one really expected it and for conservatives, we tend , in theory, to think the government should be as light on the economy as possible. I say in theory because it is under a supposedly conservative president that the banks have been de facto nationalized.

So perhaps the first thing we get out of this is that people really care about bread and butter issues. And if we give up on core principles and try to buy popularity, we should expect losing. Given the chose between someone whose actions go against their theoretical principals, and someone who comes out and says the government will give you everything you need, the voter is going to go with the genuine article. If we play "me tooism" we will lose.

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.

Is Obama a Socialist?

This is a question that has been hoovering around Obama since the start of the campaign. It gained new traction following Senator Obama's remarks to "Joe the Plumber." So is he?

I doubt Obama is a socialist in the traditional Marxist nationalizations context. Granted, President Bush, by effectively nationalizing the banks, insurance and automobile industries has got the ball rolling should President Obama consider further nationalizations.

Rather, Obama strikes me as a "managerial state" type. James Burnham developed the concept, which has become mostly popular in "paleoconservative" circles as a criticism of modern society. (Of course, the positive spin you could place on Obama's beliefs could be that he is a "Galbraitian" and a believer in the idea of a "new class" to guide society.) I am no paleo, but I think the concept holds some validity.

I think an Obama administration will be very interventionist and regulatory, i.e., very "managing" but not instituting direct state ownership or control. Is there a difference? To some extent yes. But I worry that it will stifle innovation and increase our reliance on the state.

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!

1968 -- Buckley on the "Next President"

This was part of those great 1968 commentaries by Buckley and Vidal. My favorite quote from Buckley, "The best run country in the world is Switzerland . . . no one can remember [the] name [of Switzerland's president]."

Obviously, my view of the presidency is closer to Buckley's than Vidal's (OK -- much closer to Buckley's) but I think our remaining candidates should pay close heed to what they both said.

They all need to keep their egos in check. One reason I think government increasingly does not work is that we have grown to expect far too much from it. It is reaching the point where government is seen as the font of all that is "good and holy" and the only end of that can be a lessening of our freedoms. It can be over stupid things -- the Chicago City Council is considering outlawing small plastic bags as part of the "war on drugs" that has devastated our cities and our poorer classes.

I am no anarchist (at least not before my third martini) and believe government to have an important function. I do not, however, believe that the government (especially Washington) must solve all problems and cure all ills. Not do I think government is capable of solving all problems and curing all ills. But government must serve everyone (though we will all disagree as to what the best course is).

So take heed of Vidal's warning to heed the ghetto as well as the boardroom, but also remember, as Buckley pointed out, that no one knows who is the president of Switzerland.

Where have all the leftists gone?

My cyber friend Rodak, in response to my post regarding the Buckley – Vidal commentaries during 1968 wonders (and I am paraphrasing here) where have all the leftists gone? At least, why aren't any of them appearing on TV these days?

Let it be noted that despite the supposed "liberal bias" of the MainStreamMedia, figures on the true left are never seen on mainstream television. If not for C-SPAN, figures like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn would never be on TV at all. All of the neocons, and the rest of Wm. F. Buckley's spawn, by contrast, are on constantly. There are still left-wingers alive in the wild, but you have to seek them out for yourself; they are not brought to you free of charge by the MSM, as are the generations of Kristols and Podhoretzes.

And I have to agree with him, though I believe for slightly a different reason than he probably does. I believe a big part of it is how you view politics in America – is it left v. right or Democrats v. GOP? While the Democrats are the left and the GOP the right, those two possibilities are not really the same thing.

The conservative movement has been connected with the GOP since 1964. While there are dissenters (Pat Buchanan being the most prominent), most professional conservatives are seen as somehow surrogates for the GOP. This is not the case with the professional leftists, such as Chomsky and Zinn. Neither of those two could ever be considered surrogates for the Democratic Party. So considering the realities of our two-party system, in order to appear relevant, the media wants to have is a Democrat debating a Republican. They cannot fit into this dichotomy a debate between, say the left wing Chomsky and a libertarian such as Justin Raimondo.

A second problem is the decline of the "public intellectual." And by that, I mean someone who has a wide range of interests and knowledge and is not simply a specialist trying to discuss a narrow field or a political hack trying to score points. No matter what your thoughts on Buckley's or Vidal's politics, they both were polished intellectuals who could make an argument by reference to history and were well versed in high culture. Is there really anyone who can fit that mold today?

Looking at CNN's coverage of mini Tuesday, it seemed to me that the panelists were either political types or journalists. Bill Kristol was also there to be sure. But the debate was being framed as GOP v. Obama supporters v. Clinton supporters. In the general election it will be framed as GOP v. Democrat. So you will find a few GOP pundits and political types and have them face off against a few Democratic pundits and politics types. And the discussion will unfortunately be somewhat superficial and center around scoring points, rather than debating ideas.

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.