« Sandbox - 7jun15 | Main | Rich Ulery on Our Unfunded Liabilities »

08 June 2015


Account Deleted

Great essay George, but our society wants 'social justice'. Whatever that is. I'm afaid that technology has allowed so many to live in a virtual reality that they believe that it can be made real by adjusting the dials and switches of government. Progressives and moderates are completely sold on the idea that our economy can be 'fixed' by nothing more than passing the correct legislation and having the Fed print an abundance of money. Delayed gratification, personal responsibility and self initiative are bad words now.
At the end of it, our society believes firmly that a happy, contented and prosperous life can be acheived by simply having the govt deliver it to our front door as a 'right'. Actual reality consistantly mandates a different result, but what does reality know?

History is not static and it does not progress linearly. There was more free speech and unimpeded expression in 5th-century Athens than in Western Europe between 1934-45, or in Eastern Europe during 1946-1989. An American could speak his mind more freely in 1970 than now. Many in the United States had naively believed that the Enlightenment, the U.S. Constitution, and over two centuries of American customs and traditions had guaranteed that Americans could always take for granted free speech and unfettered inquiry.

That is an ahistorical assumption. The wish to silence, censor, and impede thought is just as strong a human emotion as the desire for free expression — especially when censorship is cloaked in rhetoric about fairness, equality, justice, and all the other euphemisms for not allowing the free promulgation of ideas.

George Orwell devoted his later years to warning us that while the fascist method of destroying free expression was easily identified (albeit only with difficulty combatted), the leftwing totalitarian impulse to squelch unpopular speech was far harder to resist — couched as it was in sloganeering about the “people” and “social justice.”


"On page 31 of his popular The Conservatarian Manifesto, Charles C.W. Cooke makes a statement so satisfyingly true that I have ripped it off a half-dozen times on television.

"When was the last time you heard an aspiring conservative politician say, 'As George Bush said...' or 'I'm a George W. Bush conservative'?" asks Cooke, a witty political writer for National Review. "The mere thought is preposterous."

As Cooke notes, "During the Bush administration's turbulent eight years, the Republican Party steadily ruined its reputation, damaging the public conception of conservatism in the process. Republicans spent too much, subsidized too much, spied too much, and controlled too much." And yet here we are in spring 2015 and the top of the GOP presidential polls is haunted yet again by the most persistent four-letter word in American politics.

The noble aim of The Conservatarian Manifesto is to replace the big-government, interventionist, tax-cut-and-spend philosophy of Bush conservatism with something that leans more libertarian, particularly on spending (including on defense), drugs, nation building, and crony capitalism. So far, so great.

But political manifestos with catchy names tend to imply calls for group action and team spirit. If libertarians are going to attach themselves to a group of constitutional conservatives who reliably caucus Republican, those of us who are GOP skeptics must wonder: How can we trust that this bloc won't yet again yield to the temptations of Bushism?"


Account Deleted

"Bushism"? That's giving him too much credit. Our 'massive' debt didn't start with him and neither did his sort of governance. RINOs or Country Club Republicans have been around for decades. John Lindsay and Nelson Rockefeller (to name just 2) had the Compassionate Conservatism going long before Bush's team gave it the name.
The short answer is you can't trust anyone in power. The founders of our nation knew human nature and also knew it wouldn't change no matter what technological advances came our way. That's why they didn't want the fed govt transferring money or goods from one group to another. None. Because they had the power to mint money. The states couldn't print money and weren't to get any from the feds. The states were then free to do whatever they chose and if you didn't like it, you could move.
Unfortunately, American humans decided this was too limiting and we got 'progressives' (Rs and Dems) that thought they would shove the law aside and do what they wanted. The Supreme Court was supposed to protect us from wayward politicians, but soon they became a bunch of clever johnnies, torturing the law to make it fit their view of the world.
All you can do is vote for those that cherish the Constitution and have the original ideals of the founders in mind. Forget parties and affiliations.

Bonnie McGuire

I don't know if any of you read Peter Schweizer's book "Clinton Cash." It's hard to put down once you start reading. Most of us have hunches about something politically wrong, but this book makes it obvious. I hate to say it but the murders of our Benghazi Ambassador, his secretary, the two brave former Seals and the cover-up aftermath was like a flag waving to get our attention focused on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, President Obama, and this administration. It becomes obvious why nothing is done about political corruption in high places and Departments. This book shows how powerful Hillary and Bill Clinton are internationally and how they've enriched themselves and others during the process. "...the Clintons have operated at the fringes of the developed world, often appearing to facilitate huge resource-extraction deals that were worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The era of globalization has opened up a Wild West bonanza where profits can be made on a scale not seen since the height of nineteenth-century colonialism....in despotic areas of the developing world where the rules are very different." The Author's 2011 book was "Throw Them All Out."


George Rebane

BonnieM 438pm - Thank you. I have not read the book but have heard several reports of the pittance that Clinton Foundation passes through to its trumpeted recipients - some reports go as low as a dime on the dollar. That should be the smoking gun in all this, because the 90 cents of each contributed dollar goes into the Clinton political slush fund and personal consumptions which is also marbled beyond recognition with the 'foundation's business'. Every contributor, most specifically every foreign contributor, knows what side is buttered by their contribution. And almost no one, including Fox, picks up on this obvious travesty.

Patricia Smith

George R, above. The Clintons are politicians. So are the Bushes. If we keep bickering amongst ourselves about who is "right", we will get more of the same regardless of who is sitting in the White House.

This liberal/progressive would love to see some real welfae reform. I believe in giving a helping hand rather than a handout. I would advocate for more money for recipients FOR A MUCH SHORTER PERIOD OF TIME. It infuriates me that "middle-class" citizens who lose their jobs usually don't qualify for welfare because they earned too much money when they were working.

I believe we should re-educate workers wo are displaced from their jobs. I believe that you should not get more money if you have additional children while on welfare. I believe that you should have to do some type of community work to receive welfare. I believe that corporations should be fined and taxed for exporting American jobs overseas (and rewarded for bring jobs back to the US).

That should get the conversation rolling! (Please beyond "it's all the lib/progs fault.")

George Rebane

PatriciaS 1209pm - OK then, let's roll. A sad fact of "displaced" workers these days is the reason for their displacement. No matter what strictures we put on repressing the freedom of American companies to do business all over the world, at least a good half of our workforce is simply uneducable to hold down a 21st century job that maintains any semblance of the lifestyle they have come to expect. Some sort of guaranteed national income will be required to supplement what they can earn on the open job market. And as I've covered here recently, no one knows how to structure a workable GNI that does not reduce the whole country to a lowest economic denominator. The graphic in 'GNI(contd) - Buffett's Epiphany'

How does your worldview dovetail with this reality?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad