Maybe I'm Not Smart Enough To Be On The Left

After a great deal of self-analysis, I may have discovered a serious lack of mental accuity in myself; though I can't say that I find it particularly worrisome.  It doesn't appear that it was a lack of intelligence, at least I have been given to understand it, as I've always measured pretty well on the IQ scale.  Neither was it a lack of knowledge, as I have loved to study since I was a small child; and have worked assiduously at maintaining the standing of a well-read person.  It couldn't have been a lack of education, as I've was given my early lessons in a very good private grade school, spent most of my high school years in the 'first track' (honors program) of one of the finer college prep schools in the city of Chicago, and attended classes at a couple of well-respected seats of higher learning. It don't think it could even be considered the lack of ability to communicate, though many who've been reading the efforts in this blog for any length of time could probably make an argument to the contrary.  Regardless of being able to set aside all of these potential drawbacks to my brainpower however, there still seems to be something missing intellectually in my case. 

So maybe it's not a question of knowledge but one of maturity instead.  As many of you know, I make no claims of maturation, hoping in life to go 'from immaturity to senility without noticing the transition'.  This sarcastic pose however does not prevent me from making my own decisions (such as they are), choosing my own career path (when the industry I'm in isn't collapsing around me), cooking my own meals (and doing so quite proficiently if I do say so myself), maintaining my own residence (when not improving it), and paying my bills (usually on time).

Being therefore what could be considered fairly intelligent, well-educated, and well read, it should be no surprise that there's a lot of subjects of national interest on which I have formed strong opinions.  These range on a wide variety of subjects from access to abortion to gun control, and I hold them regardless of the level of controversy attached to the subject.  None of these opinions if you must know, are based (except perhaps in some small part) on emotion, sentiment, or a 'gut feeling' about the situation; but instead rely on fact, logic and careful analysis of the short and long term consequences.  When doubt arises, as it must inevitably, I fall back on the concept of the 'rule of law' as embodied in the second attempt to define this government of this nation in a single document, The Constitution.  (I had a friend in Toledo that finally cured me of such things a few years back.)  Not surprisingly, you would find that these opinions are logically consistent from one subject to another.  I don't use one set of criteria to judge one issue, and its polar opposite on the next; in a pattern of logical inconsistency that hopes to achieve some twisted form of emotional self-satisfaction.    

These methods me at odds with some of my acquaintances, fellow pundits, and political opponents from the left however. You see, unlike many of my Liberal counterparts, progressive advocates, mainstream media reporters, and most of the statist politicians of both major parties; I don't appear to be able to make the same kind of decisions that they can.  Oh don't get me wrong, I'm more than capable of making decisions for myself; but draw the line at that point.  In their minds therefore, I'm suffering from apparent form of intellectual inadequacy that I find myself unashamed of:   

I'm not smart enough to make decisions for other people.
  
Fortunately enough for me, I'm not allowed to make decisions for other people.  Unfortunately for all of us, many of those who I've previously described think that they not only have the right to decide for the rest of us, but in fact have the obligation to do so.  Someone might get injured, so we'll decide not to expose you to the risk.  Somebody else might get hurt financially, so we'll take the risk for you to keep yourself from taking it.  Worse still, somebody might make the wrong choices, so we'll take those choices away from you for your benefit.  Heaven forbid that you should expose yourself to the potential of poor choices, potential harm, and future regret.  After all, that's only life as we know it.  No we the smart ones, the caring ones, the ones in political power will make these decisions for you regardless of whether you're capable or not because after all, we're smarter than you are.
     
Strangely enough, I find that there is no jealousy in my heart for those on the progressive left who believe that they are possessed of such a singular form enlightenment, but in fact a fair amount of pity.  Imagine the burden of knowledge that this progressive intelligentsia possesses, believing themselves capable to decide for all.  What a trial it must be to find one's self the discerning statist and recognize that one is so smart that they're incapable of allowing others to decide for themselves.  What fearful stress and emotional turmoil it must be for far too many of today's legislators, administrators, and of course political leaders to recognize the erudition in themselves that forces them to carry the responsibility of limiting the free choice of so many in order to defend freedom itself.

While I can certainly imagine the kind of progressive self-righteous sagacity must be required to assume the role of mother and father protector to those one barely knows in order to prevent those apparently unwilling or unable to accept the burden of making choices for themselves (lest it interfere with their Reality Show schedule), I certainly don't feel myself burdened with such personal perspicacity.  Oh yeah, I consider myself smart enough as far as it goes (just smart enough at least to refuse to use the Tom Hanks line from "Forest Gump"), but it appears that I may not be smart enough to be on The Left.



    

Contradiction In Terms

If it sometimes seems like everything having to do with politics is confusing, that might have something to do with the fact that it is.  Oh sure, often the problem is that politicians and pundits are simply trying to obfuscate (Go ahead and look it up, I'm not going to help you.), but there are times when even the snake-oil peddlers are not at fault.  You see, many of the terms used in association with politics do not mean what they appear to.

Federalism, which seems to imply a strong Federal government, in fact means much the opposite.  Those of the Founding Fathers who believed in federalism believed that were different levels of government which co-existed or shared in power on an equal footing, along with the power that the people themselves retained.  In the Federalist Papers (No.28) one of the strongest supporters of a strong central government, Alexander Hamilton, conceded: "Power being almost always the rival of power, the general (Federal) government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government."

Of course this didn't stop those considered Federalists (like Hamilton) from attempting to take things too far and gather too much power under central government.  Opposition to this perversion of the concept led to the creation of the Anti-Federalists (Jefferson & Madison) who fought Federalism by espousing its original intent.  (Confused yet?)

Statism, which one would assume based on its appearance to mean place power in the hands of the States rather than a central government, in fact means what you probably thought that Federalism did.  Instead of being defined as dispersing power to the various states, in fact this terms implies that all power will be held by a strong central government.  Statism is the governmental process by which such a central government intervenes (interferes) with all aspects of society, such as the regulation of the economy, the control of markets, and the disposition of property ownership and distribution.  (I know, I know.  Don't even get me started on this or I'll have to start taking my blood pressure medicine again.  But I'll bet you're even more confused now!)

But wait, it gets better!  Now for those of you who haven't been keeping up with Just Blowing Smoke, should pay close attention and keep the duct tape handy.
 
Liberalism is not what you thought it was either,  In fact, it is the belief in liberty and individual rights, a philosophy that grew in the 17th Century (1600's), rejecting previous theories of absolute monarchy and the divine right of kings in favor of the Rights of the Common Man.  Philosophers John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were some of its first proponents and a source of inspiration for the Founding Fathers of this country. As developed, it came to simply mean a life in which the individual was free from interference from the State.  

The term was co-opted in the 19th Century however, and shifted from what we now considered the political right to what's currently the left, leaving little of its original definition behind but the term 'classical liberalism'. An early form of political correctness had injected itself into the discussion, and we were given the concepts of positive and negative liberty.  As so often happens when intellectuals get their hands on the terminology, what this also meant is that no matter which kind of liberty you were determined to have, you would now had less of it than you had before, and government would be playing a role in how much and what kind of liberty you would be permitted.  

By the time that President Teddy Roosevelt picked up the ball and ran with it (1901-09), the original meaning was all but lost.  By the time that Woodrow Wilson (1913-21) and Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-45) had their way with it, it would not have been recognized by those who originated the concepts.  (Feeling a little woozy yet?)

Conservatism in a similar fashion, was first defined as maintaining the status quo (which at that time was a monarchy or limited parliamentarian government).  Instead of seeking personal freedom and limited government, it was a politics that sought little more than keeping things the way that they were.  Often credited to such luminaries as Francois-Rene de Chateaubriand (a man, not a meat) and Irishman Edmund Burke, this became Toryism when it emerged in Great Britain.  If this term sounds familiar to you, it might be because the American Revolution in those 13 colonies fought against not only British troops brought over from what was then the motherland, but local Tories who remained loyal to the status quo of King George. (Don't worry, just breathe ...)

If all of this seems a little 'Inside Baseball', it probably is; but pointing out the misconception of so many about so much is a necessary part of the process of reversing it.  Listing the obscure and as well as the obvious is the only way we're going to recognize how badly we're getting screwed by governments and elected officials hell bent on treating us like mushrooms (buried in shit and kept in the dark). 

A pretty smart guy that I trade words with from time to time in Toledo, WSPD radio's Brian Wilson, often says that politicians wake up every morning, counting on the poor recollection, aggressive ignorance, and mind-numbed complacency of their constituents.  I would have to concede every point; but plead that while there's no excuse for it, there are definitely reasons.  It's no easier to decipher the confusion, nonsense, and absolute bullshit handed out as fact on a daily basis when the words used for any intelligent discussion on the subject of politics are little more than a contradiction of terms.

Terms of Endearment

As an evil Conservative, I have grown used to being called names over the years, or as Shakespeare would put it, "to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune". With the revitalization of conservatism in the days leading up to the November elections (and the potential of a more conservative Congress this year) however, the pace of such name calling is reaching an almost fevered pitch.


Take your pick of the appellation, recidivist, fascist, sexist, and racist are equally and constanly put forward; each intended to divert attention from a valid point of view by demonizing it (though the implication that all Conservatives are white and male seems rather disingenuous). The hope (if not expectation) of such tactics however is that by using this wildly inaccurate characterization of the practitioners of Conservatism, little or no attention will be paid to what are mostly common sense concepts, and the entire movement can be disregarded. In the rush to such demonization, there is some natural confusion that seems to occur during this process. 


For example, liberal Democrats often confuse the concept of Conservative with Republican; which is natural enough, since historically the "Grand Old Party" stood for conservative fiscal and social principles (which amusingly enough is also known as "classical liberalism"). Recent history however, has shown there are far fewer differences between the actions and agendas of Republicans and Democrats in Congress than there are between those of Conservatives and Liberals. 


These attacks are not about any such attempts at rational discussion or reasoned debate however, but about winning elections. Complex concepts cannot be encapsulated in simple sound bites, and must therefore be recast to do so. The result, as we have all become far to aware of these days, is that like love and war, all's fair in poltical campaigns.


This is not the end of the misrepresentation however. Not being content with assigning a faulty sobriquet, it also appears that insult must be added to injury in the case of conservative thinkers by adding the concept of fear in the psychological sense to the attacks. These wanna-be analysts seem intent in assigning imagined psychoses of Xenophobe, Homophobe, and most recently Islamophobe to the mind of a Conservative. Apparently a lack of agreement in any way or with any part of the beliefs systems espoused by a fringe group of liberals constitutes the rabid fear of the threat of such beliefs. 


In fact however, one could easily make the case that attacks of this nature to show that the actual fear involved is one held by those opposing Conservative thinking (though I suspect that the term "Conservativophobe" would be far too awkward for use in the common parlance). 


Forget that the very concept of Conservative thinking is one that celebrates the rights of the individual, so long as that freedom does not result in an act of aggression against that individual's neighbors. Forget that it is Conservative thinking is that has always championed the rights of the minority against the oppression of the majority. Forget even such thinking has at its heart the freedom of speech and religion that are decried in such attacks. No, seriously, forget all of these things; for certainly those of the supposedly enlightened thinkers in opposition seem to have done so in order to put forth an agenda of behavioral control, government mandate and regulation, and a philosophy based on the concept that if we create enough laws, citizens will find it impossible not to be guilty of violating at least one them and therefore themselves be afraid.


The truth is that realities are always far much more complex than these simple (and simple-minded) designations allow. It is likewise true that there are donkeys that deserve the tails that their critics attempt to pin on them. It should also be noted for the record however, that not all who attempt to call themselves Conservatives actually are. In fact it may be some of these faux Conservatives that deserve the ire of not only the opponents of conservative principles, but of true Conservative thinkers themselves. Their attempts to hijack a very reasoned and principled philosophy may be an even greater insult than the assaults of Conservatism's opponents. 


As for me, I consider these insults little more than "Terms of Endearment" (an expression which has nothing to do with the chick flick of the same name). It's not that I agree with the characterizations, in fact far from it. Nor is it that I concede the validity of their arguments. I simply recognize that by using such tactics in an attempt to deal with true Conservatism, these opponents in fact validate the very ideas that they are attacking. By blatantly belittling the precepts espoused by the Founding Fathers, they in fact provide a special level of legitimacy to those who represent these concepts today.


While I am certainly concerned that political candidates attempting to take on the Conservative mantle will like many before them, shed it quickly once elected; the fact that there are so many are seeking and accepting this mantle is indeed encouraging. The attacks leveled at these candidates and their followers in fact shows a level of fear that I find both hopeful, and strangely appealing. I understand that such desperation may be the final attempt before the November elections to derail such Conservative campaigns. To those attempting it therefore, I say:

"You're standing on the tracks and the trains coming through."

Just The Facts

Growing up as a child, one of the first police shows that I remember watching was "Dragnet". Sgt Joe Friday (Jack Webb) and Officer Bill Gannon (Harry Morgan) never failed to get to the bottom of the case by looking for "just the facts". 


I find a comparison almost ludicrous today while looking at political perspectives. Don't get me wrong. I know that both parties have been guilty of taking liberties with the facts from time to time, but it certainly seems that the guilty party in recent days has been the political left. Take for example, unemployment numbers. Some of the liberal standard bearers like to crow over decreasing (or at least stable) unemployment based on those not claiming benefits. When the right points out that unemployment numbers don't include people whose benefits have run out or who have given up looking for a job in a climate providing far too few, they are criticized for ignoring or slanting the facts out there or of a misinterpretation of the facts presented. 


Some will then go on to point out that the number of jobs created (or saved) since they gained control of both the White House and the Congress have increased. When their opposition points out that many of those jobs touted were either government jobs or temporary govt jobs in the Census Bureau, they are decried for failing to properly give credit to the Administration for its success. When the right goes on to further complain that the bulk of the increase is in public rather then private sector jobs (and adding to the cost of government), the left miraculously shifts its perspective and castigates its opponents for not recognizing the fact that most of the public sector jobs described were temporary ones in the Census Bureau and that they no longer exist. 


Hidden in the double speak about these phantom Census jobs however, is the fact that there have still been far too many jobs being created in the last 20 months which been full-time positions for an expanding government bureaucracy (far more than those created in the private sector). 


This kind of fact selection with unemployment numbers is not new to many on the left however, and shows the same myopic vision used during the often referred to and oft-lauded progressive thinking of the New Deal era. For those who take the time to track the facts, they will find that unemployment numbers were actually showing a gradual improvement after the stock market crash of 1929, and that the economy may have recovered on its own if not for the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930. This particular bit of government intervention in the economy was a tariff intended to raise the price of imported goods in order to drive up purchases of goods 'made in America', which would in turn produce more employment. 


In fact, while Smoot-Hawley did raise the price of foreign products; it had the unintended consequence of causing a trade war with the rest of the world, which led to an even larger and deeper economic crisis. This and subsequent interference on the government's part not only didn't reduce the problem of unemployment in the US, but in fact saw it increase to double digit levels in this country, and helped drag the crisis out until it was finally ended by the economic stimulus of WWII. 


Another example of such selective facts may be when some on the left point to the reduction of the federal deficit during the Clinton years. They use this debt reduction as proof that progressive principles and increased taxation lead to a reduction of the national debt. The inconvenient facts however, are that the decreases in the deficit actually occurred during the last years of the Clinton Administration, when control of Congress was taken by Republicans in 1994. The fulfillment of their "Contract with America" contributed to both welfare reform and overall reduced government spending, and is far more likely the cause of any deficit reduction. 


Similarly, some of the progressive persuasion will point to the fact that the national debt went up during the Bush Administration, but will carefully avoid the facts surrounding one-time spending related to 9/11 and the subsequent war on terror. Equally absent from the facts cited are that spending and the deficit increased dramatically beginning in 2007 when politicians with a more liberal viewpoint took control of Congress. Nor will anyone on the left acknowledge that even while the country was going through the darkest days of the financial crisis in 2008, that deficit spending came in at $800 billion (including the much ballyhooed TARP money loaned out and mostly since repaid). 2010 deficit spending however, now that we are coming out of this crisis (according to those same progressive thinkers) will exceed $1.4 trillion. Equally absent from these so-called facts is that the CBO expects the deficit in 2011 to come in at over $1.1 trillion under the current levels of spending in this progressively led Congress, even if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. 


There are of course more examples of such tainted and obfuscated facts, but there is not time or space to list all of them. We can use even these brief specimens however to illustrate that while those on both sides of the aisle can play fast and loose with the facts, that these days it is those on the left that find it far easier to argue their point of view when using only selected facts. Once such a selection process has occurred, considerable creativity in interpretation can likewise be used in order to reach a pre-determined conclusion guaranteed more by a point of view than those facts. While not alone in their guilt in such matters, the left appears to have taken such selective inattention to facts and interpretive creativity to a new level lately, and done so with particular glee. It likewise seems that they are incapable of providing any current argument based solely on 'just the facts'.

I'm A Liberal

I am a liberal, and what's more, I'm in pretty good company. No I am not on medication, drinking the Kool Aid, nor has the world flipped on its axis. Neither have I been invited to the Kennedy compound for a global warming summit with Al Gore or an economic summit with Chris Dodd, Charlie Rangel, and Barney Frank. What has in fact happened is that I have decided that words after all, do mean things. 

You see Liberalism (or more accurately defined these days, Classical Liberalism), had it's birth in the Age of Enlightenment and is a philosophy that stresses individual liberty and a limited government. Taken in great part from the works of such writers John Locke, David Hume, and Voltaire it exhorts the concepts of equality of opportunity (not outcome as today's Liberals would like to believe), property rights, and equal rights under the law. 

It's no surprise therefore that I say that I'm in pretty good company when say that I am such a Liberal. Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Adams, James Madison, and the rest of the Founding Fathers were all such Liberals in their time. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are in fact based on such thinking. 

In turn, it was the Conservatives of the time who believed in a strong central government, sought government control of prices and wages, and were against the very concept of independence and the American Revolution. So what happened? How did what the Founding Fathers believed become the liberalism that we see today? 

The answer, once again is that words mean things. While Classical Liberalism believed in those principles previously outlined, there is another kind of Liberalism, Social Liberalism. Social Liberalism believes in heavier taxation and more government control of the economy. European Social Liberals of today in fact shows more of a tendency towards Socialism or even Communism than the more pure form of the philosophy. As language often does, the original meaning of words becomes gradually changed over time (some would say even perverted). Those with the loudest or most strident voices eventually decide what words will mean (much as the winners of a war write the history). 

In the 19th and early 20th century, and especially during the Depression this led to a change in liberalism; especially in how it related to economic theory. It is here that the theories of John Maynard Keynes took root, in what classical liberals would say was a misguided attempt to get the government more involved with the economy to redress what Keynes felt was an inequality of wealth. It was this philosophy, taking hold in the policies of FDR's New Deal, that formed the basis of today's liberal thinking. Over time, those in power simply took over the meaning of the language, leaving the term Conservative for those seeking to maintain at least the status quo, and who rejected the type of change that these new Liberals were making.  

Time and History march on, and labels stick; but I take the position (as I said in the beginning of this posting) that words can and must have meaning. I believe that true liberal thinking (Classical Liberal thinking) is still of value in today's society. As I consequence, I proudly proclaim that I am indeed a Liberal.