Whenever I ask myself, “What were the Republicans thinking?” I find the answer in the immortal collection of essays by Irving Kristol, Neo-Conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea. In that book, Kristol lays out his grand plan for how the Republicans can truly achieve immense power in the United States, but that to do so will mean abandoning principles of fiscal conservatism and balanced budgets and embracing the “conservative welfare state.” Kristol further instructs that in matters of economics and foreign policy, the people aren’t to be listened to (as democratically elected politicians sometimes mistakenly believe), rather they are to be led because they are ignorant of these matters and they know it. In addition, Kristol and his associates guided the New Right to create a budget crisis by implementing socialist policies to compete with those of the left and to use this crisis to force the public to choose between traditional socialism and market-based social engineering. Well, the people have chosen: If you’re going to have a welfare state, let the left run it–after all, you can’t beat a guy at his own game.
The pundits on all sides will talk about this election as being a choice between right and left, speculating, “Was Romney too far to the right?” Or, “Was Romney not ‘right’ enough?” But “the right” as it is now defined comes with all sorts of baggage that is both inconsistent with the founders’ principles (to which the right pays much lip service) and irrelevant to national politics (or at least should be). The right has become the right side of the left: a quasi-market-based philosophy promising more efficiently to achieve the-all-things-to-all-people government at the core of liberal philosophy. But what makes the Republican Party “too right” to the pundits is that it couples this “conservative welfare state” with federal attempts to control people’s behavior at home and the shape of the world outside its borders. Regardless of the labels, from top to bottom, the right now merely offers a different flavor of statism from the left’s, not an alternative to statism itself. What’s worse is that while not providing an alternative to statism, the New Right purposely displaces those who would.
General
The Final Debate
Romney is competitive–he likes to win. Obama is egotistical–he likes to be admired. That’s why when these two go at it, Romney has a lightness about him–to him it’s a game. Obama on the other hand is pissed–to him it’s personal.
This was obvious from the first minutes of the first debate. Obama seemed to seethe at Romney. Not only that, but Obama actually seemed kind of depressed and has ever since. I think part of why he hates Romney and seems so put out by debating him is that Romney and this whole tough campaign have triggered an identity crisis in Obama.
This is the sink or swim moment Obama never had. I’ve had my own, so I recognize the signs. It happened to me when I had to learn the difference between school and work. I was always lucky enough to get standardized test scores that would make a tiger mom weep, but when I finally got to the big leagues–my rude awakening being a summer internship at a bulge bracket investment bank’s mergers and acquisitions group–it became clear to me that coasting through multiple choice questions while the clock panicked my peers was not enough to succeed in the real world. Hard work, knowledge, skills, experience and instincts were giving my co-workers advantages over me and I was getting a run for my money. I caught on pretty quickly that I had to change my game, but the experience was intense and painful.
I see reflections of this same kind of pain washing over Obama’s face every time he’s in a room with Romney. I’m not suggesting that Obama coasted through life on his ability to take standardized tests–he has never given me reason to believe he was as brainy as the media made him out to be. No, I believe Obama’s advantage was more akin to George W. Bush’s: connections that gave him both position and protection. Obama’s stepfather was a liaison between the Indonesian government and big oil, Obama’s mother worked for Tim Geithner’s father at the Ford Foundation in Indonesia, and Obama himself went to an elite private high school in Hawaii, just to name a few.Â
America's Talent Deficit: A Free Market Solution
The plight of the anti-austerity crowd in the PIIGS countries often loses my sympathy when I notice that the most vociferous and violent protestors seem to be students against cuts in university subsidies. If there is one “entitlement” that has no moral basis whatsoever, in my opinion, it is this one, yet these free-riding students are the most self-righteous. I pity many of the people who are dependent on the bankrupt systems they grew up in, sometimes through no fault of their own. These include it’s-too-late-to-start-over Social Security dupes, already-sick Medicare recipients and I-paid-into-Unemployment-for-years dolees.Â
Professional students, however, are not on my sympathy list. I have come to believe that higher education is not really serving the social purpose these angry, marching students seem to base their sense of righteousness on. That is, higher education is not simply the great equalizer, the path on which the have-nots can learn the secrets of the haves and enter their ranks based not on birth but on merit. Today’s higher education is not intended simply to illuminate the minds of the children of the ignorati with crucial facts, critical thinking and the art of argument–doing that really would give the ruling classes a run for their money!Â
All Hail Bloomberg!
Check out this video of Mayor Bloomberg speaking to Dr. Sanjay Gupta on CNN just after his recent ban on large sodas was approved by the Board of Health in New York City. In the clip, Bloomberg does a better job than any libertarian ever could of demonstrating how centralized economic plannning per force results in the violation of personal liberty. For all “left-leaning libertarians,” please take this as an opportunity to observe how government provided economic services cannot coexist with personal liberty. Specifically, Bloomberg’s argument demonstrates that the primary danger of Obamacare is not how it will impair the quality and availability of healthcare itself (though that is inevitable and a valid fear) but the primary danger is that Obamacare will be used as a justification for total control over what should be personal choices.
In the video, Bloomberg rightly points out that the cigarette ban was widely criticized when it came to pass but now that us frogs have been boiling for awhile we don’t even feel the heat. He goes on to claim
Recommended Reading: With God in Russia & Other Stories of Survival
I am a big fan of well-written survival stories and I have read a few great ones. Here is a list of my favorites: Stories of Survival. I wish to feature, however, the one I read most recently: With God in Russia, by Father Walter Ciszek, S.J.
This is the story of a Jesuit priest who went to Poland and ultimately went undercover as an ordinary peasant to minister to Poles behind Russian lines during World War II. Upon being discovered as a priest by the Russians, he was charged with subversion and imprisoned for 23 years until his release through exchange for two Russian prisoners in 1963.
The story is so humbly and straightforwardly written that it takes awhile to realize how greatly Fr. Ciszek is suffering through all of this. For his dedication to the service of God and his defense of the Faith, Fr. Ciszek is up for sainthood. He has many devotees, including my mother, who pray for his canonization regularly–there are whole societies dedicated to him, and I can understand why.
I won’t go through all of the many hardships Fr. Ciszek endured, but I will relate how his story stays with me and why I think of him often.Â
Good News & Bad News
The bad news is I am once again getting preempted by football; the good news is, I’ve got a podcast for ya. Of course the best part of the show for me is the calls, but this’ll have to do for now. For future shows during football season, check back here for the schedule or … Read more
Please Don't Feed Me Neo-Con & Tell Me That It's Liberty (Part 1)
Everyone is abuzz with Romney’s “bold choice” of running mate, Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan. Every bobble head with a press badge is telling us that the Tea Party and Ron Paul supporters should be psyched because, to borrow a phrase from Harry Reid: “The word is out!” Ryan’s a libertarian!
What else could he be? Ryan quotes Austrian economists and loves Ayn Rand – he must be a libertarian! And anyway, everyone says he is: Forbes calls Ryan “Ron Paul-esque,” the Financial Times calls him “a conservative of the libertarian kind,” and New York Magazine calls him “Your Annoying Libertarian Ex-Boyfriend.” He even has a libertarian-sounding name for crying out loud: Ron Paul, Ayn Rand, Paul Ryan…it just flows! As a matter of fact, someone said to me yesterday that Ron Paul was Romney’s running mate—true story! I mean those two are practically interchangeable!
What was that? You’re not so sure? Oh come now, don’t be such a purist, and don’t you dare let those nagging doubts about Ryan’s voting record bubble up to the top of your brain. And of all things, please don’t fall for it when Democratic operatives say things like, “while he may be a devotee of Ayn Rand, he has voted more like a Republican hack than a revolutionary,” or “Paul Ryan Record Shows He Could Be Running Mate of Obama.” Libertarians really do need to be more pragmatic.
Sure, Ryan denies being a libertarian
Yeah, It's My Birthday!
Check out what I got for my birthday this year! It’s AWESOME! [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7TMBB2TDDg]
The Great Chicken Wars: A Victory for Statism
Given that I’m neither very religious nor gay, I do not take an emotional stand for or against gay marriage. As an extreme libertarian, I don’t think marriage of any kind should be sanctioned or certified by the State, nor should any privileges accrue to encourage one social choice over another. As an anarcho-capitalist (the most extreme kind of libertarian), I don’t even recognize the legitimacy of the State much less wish the State to recognize the legitimacy of my marriage.
Nevertheless, I have been trying to get at what exactly is fueling the pro-Chick-fil-A demonstrations. I got a tweet during the last show saying it was homophobia plain and simple, but I don’t buy that. If Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy had said Chick-fil-A will no longer serve or hire gays, I doubt he would have experienced an upwelling of support. On the contrary, it is my experience that the vast majority of Americans are appalled at discrimination and would not have wanted to be associated with a purely bigoted policy. A minority might have supported him, but not for long–I suspect the company would have been out of business with a policy like that, legal or illegal.
Was Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day a wild success because people wanted to show their support for the First Amendment like many claim? I don’t think so. It’s true that Rahm Emanuel, the Mayor of Chicago, and Tom Menino, the Mayor of Boston, want to control Cathy’s speech by using the force of the State to punish him economically, but I did not get the sense that the crowds in Atlanta were focused on these northern mayors.
Are Chick-fil-A appreciators coming out in droves to show their disapproval of gay marriage in particular and homosexuality in general? I’m sad to conclude there is an element of that in all of this, but it’s not the driving force.
I believe that the overwhelming driving force behind the record-breaking success of Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day is