Conservative Liberals For Example

They are all-wise. They are the people. They understand all issues and can deal with them in the most intelligent way.

Right now they have evaluated the current administration and know it is wrong on every issue. And they lead others in protesting against it and them. Especially any change from what the previous administration decreed.

Health care, tax policies, administrative rules, military policies – all of what was passed in the past is better than any change that has been proposed, or might be offered by the opposition. They prefer the past to the present. Much like classic conservatives – only their standard for the past is the last administration and its bureaucrats rather than the Constitution and the Founding Fathers.

Both liberals and conservatives agree on the concepts of equality and liberty, only their definitions and points of reference differ. For conservatives equality was judged on the basis of opportunity, while liberals considered equality of results to be the Holy Grail; for conservatives liberty meant being left alone while for liberals liberty requires that the government attend to all your needs so you won't have to worry about them. But both rely on what is past. To that degree the liberals are also conservative.

The liberals often accuse their opponents of error and inconsistency, of bias and class warfare – of defending the rich and scorning the poor. And, in some respects they are right. Liberals, however, are similarly guilty. They are inconsistent when they promote diversity to the point of demanding housing at universities for specific racial groups while applauding interracial marriage which guarantees the mixing of heritages and a form of assimilation. And they don't seem to be concerned that their desire for race-specific college dormitories or other housing is another form of segregation – no matter how righteous they are about it.

Nor do they realize that providing “entitlements” to the poor is a patronizing act. Indeed, liberals scorn the poor as they favor the “middle class.” It's not the “rich,” who, they insist, are benefited by the conservatives, but it is not the poor. Many of the poor recognize the hypocrisy and vote for the conservatives. This is not to suggest that entitlements are unwelcome, but the building of industry and the provision of more jobs would be better for the individuals involved and for our country as well. Some of the liberals would increase the laws that add to entitlements and oppose any change in past offerings. But, after advocating for the past, they would oppose any recollection of those parts of our history that offend them. They favor statutes over statues, as long as those statutes fit their ideology. And as long as it is more fashionable to eliminate uncomfortable history than to explain historical context and present the current point of view for all to consider.

What they propose is to compensate for the prejudices of the past. The way they choose to do it, however, is equally problematic. Subjugation of one race while benefiting another is indefensible. Sadly, there are many, primarily conservatives, who continue to promote the same biases, biases which should never have existed, but they did and should be left in the past.

Unfortunately the compensation that many propose, and many institutions accept, is a tool of the past. It is the award of preference to the descendants of those who suffered discrimination in the past. It is affirmative action most prominently practiced in academia. The obvious problem with this practice is that it is another example of bias – one favoring groups that previously suffered discrimination, but a practice that discriminates against non-members of the preferred group. In this instance they mimic uncomfortable history rather than explain historical context and present the current point of view for all to consider; they imitate past practices rather than living up to the principles they claim to espouse. Moreover, the principle of affirmative action – the display of preference – extends beyond the universities.

Those who subscribe exclusively to their own precepts would countenance complete freedom to say and practice anything that promotes the cause. Some liberals are not merely conservatives, but libertarians – as long as their political theory is advanced. But so are some staunch conservatives. Indeed, some are forceful in promoting new ideas to advance their goals.

Actually there are two types of people, politically speaking. I'm not referring to liberals and conservatives. Together, the good ones – the majority – in both groups, notwithstanding the faults on both sides, make up one of the categories of which I speak. (When I've used the terms up to now I was emphasizing the “outliers” – the squeaky wheels, the vocal leaders of the fringes, and the fringes themselves.) While the majorities may differ in terms of methods and approaches to solving problems, both are concerned about the same problems – the fate of the country, its needy, and the rest of us.

The other group, however, is concerned with the same problems, but not as final goals – only as tools for helping them advance themselves, both politically and economically, and to their dream of gaining power. Thus, for them, the needy and the country are tools, not ends. And another motivating force among them is ideology, which is more important than accomplishment to help the electorate. Its main value is for public relations: to attract the interest of lobbies and the voters.

Most see the value of debate with those having a different viewpoint, of compromise in order to achieve progress toward correction of the issues that separate us. Admittedly they have dissimilar ideas about how that should come about, but they are eager to discuss them. The aim is accomplishment, not obstruction. Not everyone – often no one – is happy with the results, but there are results.

There is value in much of what has already happened, though we may disagree over what should be emphasized, and we are hopeful of what the future holds, recognizing that there will be changes of which we disapprove. There will always be outliers (and all too many outright liars) but they will be far outnumbered by the “inliers” who need to make their voices heard. The silent majority – whether liberal or conservative – are better representatives of public opinion than the grandstanders who promote disunity.

August 23, 2017

Various Revelations

I've mentioned before that I want my essays to stay a year in advance, to outlive me, but that limits me to writing only once a week, and, if I only add to the end, I can't deal with current problems about which I want to comment. I think I've already mentioned the anecdote about the potential columnist who feared that he wouldn't have enough to say in columns twice a week He was asked if there were two thing in the news each week that made him angry. He answered in the affirmative and was told he should write about them.

There are more than two things a week that anger me. So I have more than enough material to increase my output. It's going to wind up at twice or thrice weekly. I've been writing these essays for quite a while, so it's likely that some of them are going to be repetitious, but those are the breaks of the game. Chances are you won't read them all anyway. This one will consist of a few unrelated thoughts that crossed my mind.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Today is the first anniversary of my cancer surgery and, surprise of surprises, I'm still alive and feeling reasonably well. Perhaps I was better in the past, but I'll take what I have, considering what might have been. Chemotherapy and its side effects are annoying but, they go with the territory. I look forward to suffering them for many years to come.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I've said on many occasions that there are too many protests and marches that seem to be going on. Typically they're by liberals who invariably claim that they are working for a peaceable and mannerly society, as well as the promotion of American values which are threatened by everyone but them. For them the way to achieve a peaceable and mannerly society is by demonstrations, protests, and what is more an American value than the squelching of opposition. That's what they do in academia, where they stifle lectures by those with whom they disagree, and create “safe spaces” for those with the “right” views. Have you ever heard of conservatives shouting down a liberal speaker? Or,if they do, coming away from such an act unscathed?

Similarly, most protest marches are carried out by liberals protesting what they view as negative changes in society. And they do so in an angry way rather than by utilizing the civil behavior that they demand of others. The reason for the protest is not important. There seem to be a horde or people who will protest whatever is the cause du jour. As Eric Hoffer said (in The Passionate State of Mind), "In every passionate pursuit, the pursuit counts more than the object pursued."

It's the mob action that counts -- and is far more satisfying and important to the discontented – than whatever they claim to want to protect.

Conservatives are accused of mob mentalities and mob action, but what I see in the papers doesn't seem to bear this out.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I keep hearing on the radio about an assortment of programs that will help get people off drugs. The implication is that the causative medications are those provided by physicians. At the same time more and more states are approving or considering the use of “medical” marijuana. Marijuana has been shown to be an “entry” drug for some addicts. It seems we have mixed views on the value to society of addiction. There are even states that approve “recreational” marijuana. It's very progressive, but it's hard to square such an approach with programs to cure addiction, or the fact that the government has provided funds for that purpose. I've written about drug legalization in the past and, I suppose it's time to do so again. I'll do it! But my essay won't be published until next year..

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Radio ads recently have also included endless promises of relief – if I owe ten thousand dollars or more. It may be credit card debt or what is due in taxes. After all, it's what I “deserve.” And, of course, they'll get a cut or some other charge. They don't say it but I suspect they feel that that's what they deserve. There is never any mention that you owe money to the companies because you spent more than you have, putting off the day of reckoning. It's so easy to spend money if all you need is a pieceOver of plastic. Even easier if you use several. But overspending isn't your fault. You deserve to have your debts reduced or canceled.

And your taxes reduced. Even if you haven't been paying; even if you haven't bothered to file returns for many years; you're a good person. It's someone else's fault. You deserve help. And there are firms that offer it. One telephone call and all your problems will be solved. It must be true. They said it and they wouldn't mislead you. You do that well enough without help.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

That's all of the unrelated thoughts for now. Maybe I'll do it again. It's easier than learning more about particular issues and formulating longer articles. We'll see.

Burke, Paine, Freud, And Clerow Wilson

I'm not a philosopher. At least not any more than the other guy. But I see myself in a society I did not make, and doing things for reasons I don't always know. And I wonder why. I'm sure there are people with answers to all my questions, but I don't understand them. We live in the “post-modern”ⁱ age and I can't understand the philosophical dialectic of our times.

In truth, I find most philosophic arguments somewhat opaque. Often the players seem more interested in “one-upping” their colleagues than in helping the rest of us. Practitioners use language which I understand, to formulate concepts which I don't. I'm not an insider regarding the newer ideas, so I use as my guides to secular thoughtⁱⁱ (especially political thought) Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine, whose ideasⁱⁱⁱ are, arguably, the source of current conservative and liberal philosophies.^iv Many, I'm sure, see their views as out of date, but I live in the past.

Although their philosophies are complex and nuanced, I'll try to summarize each in just a few sentences.^v Paine was a revolutionary. He was a believer in equality and liberty and in whatever was necessary to achieve them. From his perspective when action was required we should not refrain from it. Sometimes the necessary steps worked, as in the case of the American Revolution, and sometimes, as was true regarding the French Revolution, they didn't. Sometimes they got out of hand. Although modern liberals diverge from some of his teachings, the “left,” today, shares many of his views.

Burke shared his English heritage with Paine, but disagreed on a number of points. Most important was his acceptance of the idea that the reality is that there is inequality, and that is appropriate. He saw this as most significant, and as a justified construct, in the English monarchy^vi and class system, and in Parliamentary rule.^vii,viii,ix While he supported American independence it was because that system had failed the colonies. The system was not inherently wrong, but functioned poorly when applied to the other side of the world. History and heritage were the important sources of our societies, and deviation from them should be done slowly and carefully, and following the rules. In current terms he was a “rightist.”

One way of looking at their approaches is through Paine's lens. He believed in reason,^x and that humanity, observing reason, could achieve peace and justice. He believed that reasonable men (people) would respond positively to the facts.^xi They would reach a common conclusion about the causes and cures of problems. And they would act to solve those problems.

Some, and Burke was among them, felt that reality and human nature were much more important motivators in human decision making than was recognized by those who turned to reason. He was more conservative in nature and looked to the past, to how people have acted before when faced with a similar situation, to the rules of the game, and to a full analysis of the current situation, as guides when considering the next step. It was an approach that placed greater emphasis on the “is” than the “ought,” believing that approach was more likely to be productive.

Perhaps politics was not the most important subject on Sigmund Freud's agenda, but his teachings accurately reflect past as well as present political philosophies. Paine believed in the immediate identification and rectification of problems by whatever means he thought might work at the time. It is still a common method of operation – recognize a problem and solve it. And by using Reason, you can certainly identify those things that are unfair or wrong in life.

Whether the therapy works or not, it is a start. Even if some of the results of the solution are problems greater than those which initiated the action,^xii it is a start, and if changes are needed they can be made in the proposed remedy. Don't just stand there, do something. Fix the problem. Right the wrong.

The process is the equivalent of a person following the directives of his Id. It is the unfiltered and, often, the incompletely evaluated reaction to situations which, themselves, may not be what they seem.^xiii And there may be disagreement on the nature of the problem, even among reasonable people.^xiv Hence there will be disagreement concerning the solutions. And since we are dealing with ungoverned Ids, the solutions, themselves, may be in conflict – possibly even resulting in deleterious results. Too often they act too fast.

Those who rely on history and human nature, on doing good while observing past precedents and proprieties, seem to be more significantly controlled by their Superego. But that Superego tells them to act slowly and deliberately and to do their best not to violate those principles that have been reliable guides in the past.^xv And it may be the cause of delay in action when more speed is warranted.

For Aristotle it was the “golden mean.” For Maimonides it was the “middle way.” Our solution to the problem, as named by Freud, is the Ego. Not the boastful and self-centered pride that rules too many of us, but the integration of our urges with the constraints that govern them. And, for the most part, it works. In politics it's called “compromise.”^xvi While there are times when “no deal” is better than a “bad deal,”^xvii it is usually the case that compromise can serve both sides: generally the truth lies somewhere between the extremes – though not always in the middle. Even the Ego can temper justice with mercy – or, at least, the Superego with the Id.

Reason and human nature may not be simple concepts, but we know what they mean and we can deal with them even if we can't work out every problem. They're far more understandable than complex philosophies that consider many issues of no concern to us, and that turn our vocabulary into a playing field of the cognoscenti. But I know where the philosophers are “coming from.” As I said, I have a grasp of reason and human nature.

Next episode: “My Ideal” – Wait until text time.

 

 

 

 

I        Actually, there's probably a new designation for it. Or perhaps that age is over and there is currently a new one. Either way, however, it's not the age in which I grew up.

ii       I have to admit to what would, nowadays, be considered old fashioned. I still use the Bible and some of its expositors as the basis for my religious ideas – but they're even older than Burke and Paine.

iii      Or, more accurately, whose predispositions led them in different directions though they may have dealt with identical facts.

iv       A fascinating book on the subject is “The Great Debate,” by Yuval Levin. (New York, Basic Books, 2014). The designation of conservative and liberal is, admittedly, an oversimplification. The two agreed on many points though their premises and approaches were divergent.

v        I apologize for the hubris, but space requires it, and because I only want to use parts of their opinions as starting points. I'll try to expand a little at some time in the future.

vi       And other monarchies as well.

vii      Other obvious inequalities – physical, intellectual, and socioeconomic – are less relevant to this discussion.

viii     Burke didn't completely repudiate the idea of equality, but his approach, in modern terms, would be the acceptance of equality of opportunity rather than outcome, which was more in keeping with Paine's outlook. In both cases, however, it would take long explanation to clarify their positions.

ix       Apart from differences noted above (end note vii), a 3 year old doesn't have the knowledge he will have following an education; nor does a 25 year old have the wisdom, insight, or experience he will have a half-century later.

x        Indeed, he named, and believed, that he lived during “The Age of Reason,” and he even wrote a book by that title.

xi       It's hard to ignore the fact that both Paine and Burke were highly intelligent men with good stores of reason. Yet they argued. But that's human nature.

xii      It may be “better to light a candle than to curse the darkness” (Watkinson), but if the match used to light the candle also sets the house on fire there is a worse problem than there was before. While that new situation teaches an important lesson, and may lead to changes, it would have been better to hold of on action and to take a little time first to find the light switch.

xiii     What you see is not necessarily what you get, and it may be seen differently by others.

xiv      While virtue is assumed to be the justification for most of the doings of those who rely on intellect, some reasonable people will personalize the problem. They will see only injustices toward themselves, and act to optimize their own position. Clerow Wilson (“Flip” Wilson to the initiated), when his character Geraldine was found to be acting out of concern for herself, was wont to have her claim “The Devil made me do it.” Her Id prescribed behaviors that solved her problems, even if at a cost to others.

xv       Of course many of their acts are based on human nature too, so self-interest will also be on their agenda.

xvi      Unfortunately, politics, for the most part, doesn't work. That's as a result of human nature. Certainly not reason. They clothe their refusal to compromise on “principle,” but too many of them lack the principles necessary to support such a claim.

xvii     Indeed, Maimonides taught that when it came to anger or pride there was no justice on their sides.

Romeo And Juliet: Democrats

“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”

The quotation is usually attributed to Winston Churchill, although it's interesting that during his youth he was a conservative and joined the Labor Party later on. He did, however revert to his conservative philosophy after that. And there he remained. Whether or not he originated the idea, however, he expressed the same sentiment on several occasions.

It's not a new idea. Respect for age has long been a component of the philosophy of all peoples. The wise man of every culture is old.ⁱ His wisdom comes from long experience, and is, in large part, based a recognition of reality – the reality he has seen with the passing of the years.

But most people don't start out this way. They are passionate and optimistic. For a brief period there is perennial spring, and young love is all around. The young are always in love, or about to be. “In the spring a young man's fancy ...” Romeo and Juliet were in their teens,ⁱⁱ and they were very much in love.

The passion of the young, however is not only for opposite sex; it also manifests itself in their attachment to particular political ideas and causes. They display great concern for those less fortunate, and they see society as both the cause of that condition and the party responsible for its solution. So it's natural that they consider society responsible for righting the wrongs. But it's an attitude that started long before.

“Daddy. I want that.” “Mommy, I want all my friends at my birthday party.” “At school we're collecting for the hungry. Give me a few dollars to take in.”

Children, who don't understand what they are doing, are eager to have, and to give away, someone else's money.ⁱⁱⁱ And the inclination to do so persists as a habit even as they enter their earning years. When they're young, moreover, they see the good in everyone and view society as responsible for making certain that all those good people are taken care of. Even if the “rich” must do it. The later stories of Robin Hood illustrated this outlook. “Take from the rich and give to the poor.” It's socialism, which is seen by them as the most just form of economy – as long as they're on the receiving end, or at least not asked to pay. It's a continuation of the idea that there is virtue in giving away someone else's possessions.

What also develops during youth is the view that they will live forever and never age. There arises with that view some suspicion of those who are older, and of authority in general. Children are convinced that they know more than their parents, and they distrust those who are in charge.^iv In fact, they are wary of all those who are better off than they, and very openhearted when it comes to the needs and demands of those lower than themselves in society.^v There is no concern over the precise reason for their own position, or that of others: the better off you are, the less worthy. And vice-versa. They are liberal in their view of how the underprivileged^vi should be treated. And they are passionate in their beliefs. They are young^vii and sympathetic.^viii They view those in poverty as the virtuous^ix while those who are not impoverished are responsible for the poverty. They may not know who Winston Churchill was, but they exemplify the characteristics he described.

Conservatives view the world differently – especially their perception of their philosophic opposites. They forget that they were once young. From their perspective, liberals have no concept of reality. In their eagerness to right society's wrongs, the young are impulsive, reckless, and destructive. They give little thought to the likely results of their actions – only to the desired results. The possibility of unintended consequences, they believe, should not prevent action. Planning for the future should not delay acting in the present. And in the end if they work virtuously, good will triumph over evil.

Conservatives believe that the young accept, on faith, the idea that people are good and should be trusted. From their own point of view, however, it would be better not to trust any others and to plan for all possible contingencies. To a degree, they agree with their counterparts in respect to distrusting authority, but their reasoning is different. Liberals are likely to accept as it stands the teaching of Lord Acton, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." Thus it is wrong to follow those who are “corrupt” and who are “almost always bad men.” Implicit in that concept is the idea that until they became powerful and great, they were pure and good.

But that is where they part ways with conservatives who consider many people bad – not just those in power. For most of us, though, our sins are practiced on a small scale because that is all that is available to us. When the corrupt become powerful, however, they become a threat to everyone else. A Hitler or a Stalin who is not in power may be malicious, but his influence is limited. It is the individual, not the office, that is the source of evil and corruption. And it is the office that magnifies malevolence.

It's oversimplification of course, but, for the most part, there are good people and there are bad people. And there are the rest of us.^x Unfortunately, those concerned about the plight of the downtrodden will try to aid them irrespective of the consequences, and others will prefer to consider those consequences before trying to help. What is often needed is a sensitivity by both groups to the views of the other. We cannot be blind to the needs of our brothers and sisters, but we cannot ignore the costs of our actions nor their possible results. And we cannot ignore the costs that we are imposing on future generations. They will be called upon to help the poor who exist among them, and may be unable to do so if we impose the cost of helping our needy on our descendents.

The ideas of discussion and compromise are neither original nor new. But we cannot make a headlong attack on the needs of the world's people without first discussing the best way to accomplish our goals without creating more problems than we solve. We cannot consider plans that will enrich the hearts of the planners and the pockets of those who implement the plans more than the intended beneficiaries. However we can't delay acting until we've devised a plan that will deal with all conceivable contigencies. We cannot place ideology above reality. It may be necessary to take some risks, as long as we know what they are.

No matter our age, we have to follow both our hearts and our brains.

Next episode: “The Bible And American Law” – You can't have one without the other.

 

 

 

I        Some of the young are, indeed, smart. They may even be smarter than their seniors as are some scientists, composers, chess players, and mathematicians. But they are rarely as wise.

ii       Using Churchill's criteria, that would make them liberal. In the context of American politics they would have been Democrats if they lived here now. (Of course if they had survived from Shakespeare's time to ours they would be quite old, and probably conservative by this time. At least if they had brains in addition to their hearts.)

iii       It's an inclination that persists during their school years but diminishes, and usually disappears, when they realize that it's their own money; that it causes their taxes to be higher.

iv       A special distrust of government and government officials exists, often with good reason. Surveys tell us that members of Congress, and politicians in general, rank very low among the various groups in our society when it comes to matters of confidence.

v        Ours, or elsewhere in the world.

vi      The word “underprivileged” suggests that they were not born into the wealthy class and that they have no responsibility for their condition. While that is often the case, it is not universal and the choice of that word prejudices the hearer and tells him that those so described have been placed in their unenviable situation by the “privileged” – those who undeservedly oppress the rest of us. Someone who started out underprivileged and, by dint of his own efforts, is now well-off, was good and has become evil.

vii      Not all liberals, of course, are young but, like Peter Pan, they may choose not to grow up. The philosophy may persist in some as a sincere reflection of their belief in equality. For others it may be a characteristic admired by their profession (it's important for one who wants to progress in academia for example to be a member of the right – politically left – clique, just as it is for little girls, though the cliques of little girls may have different criteria for membership, and they may not be as mean) or a self-serving property. Union members will certainly demand higher pay owed to them by the rich, and the poor, whether young or old, are certain that they are owed the support of society as a whole.

viii     In the terminology of coldhearted conservatives they are bleeding heart liberals.

ix       Of course they don't see virtue in poverty.

x        I'll discuss that issue at another time. Stay tuned.

Double-decker Democracy

                                                                              

In the beginning was the soup.ⁱ

There were a few elements and compounds in it, and a lot of gas and lightning outside. And, according to the scientists, it was from this brew that life arose.ⁱⁱ Eventually, though it took a bit of time, there developed both jungle and the animals within it. And survival of the “fittest.” “Kill or be killed.” It was the Law of the Jungle. “Live and let live” and “Turn the other cheek” were not viable alternatives when survival was at stake.

But the beginnings of civilization – of people living together – required a rethinking of the doctrine. “Every man for himself” might have been a necessity when early humans survived as individuals, but it was not suited to group living. So the “Social Contract” was developed. People banded together to form communities to which they surrendered some of their freedom in exchange for the protection that the group offered.ⁱⁱⁱ America's founders went a little beyond that in establishing a government whose primary responsibility was defense, but there were other jobs to be performed in governing and legislating for the newly fashioned nation, so they did so. Followers of Locke, among others, they favored the idea that freedom was a critical goal, one that any rational individual would accept, and that those who did not accept the idea of freedom should be forced to do so – or at least to a limited extent – by accepting the rules of American society.

The belief in “Natural Rights” was a major stumbling block to the acceptance of the Constitution since the Federalists were reluctant to include individual rights in the document, but eventually the original document was approved with the agreement of the Federalists to pass amendments which later became known as the “Bill of Rights.” In effect, the initial Constitution and the Bill of Rights together comprise the document by which our nation was originally defined.

But times have changed. And with them, so has our Constitution. There are new amendments and new laws. Lots of them. And there is “reinterpretation” of the Constitution itself, as well as the subsequent statutes designed to implement it. As for the Bill of Rights, there is freedom of speech and the press, except …; we're free to assemble, when we're not prohibited from doing so. Religious freedom is guaranteed – freedom both of and from religion – but within certain limits; there is protection against self-incrimination unless …; and certainly we have the right to bear arms – sometimes.

There have been numerous other changes in the law and new regulations as well, and many of our citizens believe them to be worthwhile. The conviction is widespread, in the United States and elsewhere, that it is the responsibility of the State to care for its citizens, especially those who cannot, or will not, care for themselves. And the cost of such care must be borne by those who can afford it. Some consider this to be socialism, others the granting of simple Natural Rights, including, the right to food, housing, health care, and the like. It's hard to dispute the wish to help those in need.

But not everyone believes that the provision of that help should be mandated by government at the expense of all. Perhaps the idea of Natural Rights is understood differently in the various cultures around the world. There is certainly disagreement in different nations about what a government must provide for its citizens and what it can demand of them. A quick reading of the newspaper^iv will illustrate this situation. Not only do we disagree on what these rights are, but we have different understandings about their origin. Are they man-made or are they divine? Have we the right not to have the definitions of others imposed on us? Or have we the obligation to force people to be free and equal?^v

It's the age-old disagreement between conservatives and liberals. Among liberals the concept of equality is paramount. The focus begins with Hobbes's laws of nature,^vi the fifth of which reads:

The fifth Law is complaisance: that every man strive to accommodate himself to the rest. The observers of this law may be called sociable; the contrary, stubborn, insociable, froward, intractable.

But they see every man's obligation as far greater. Not only should he “strive to accommodate himself to the rest,” but he should make sure that society provides equally for everyone. Being “sociable” may not be possible without the use of taxes. Hence it is perfectly permissible to mandate charity.

Conservatives, especially libertarians, reject what they regard as a “nanny state.” They seek a situation in which, beyond their own safety, there are few controls on what they do.

Recent inventions and business methods call attention to the next step which must be taken for the protection of the person, and for securing to the individual what Judge Cooley calls the right "to be let alone."^vii

Warren and Brandeis were referring to privacy when they wrote this,^viii and it was a liberal concept, however conservatives would now apply it to all aspects of life. The uninterpreted Constitution is, for them, an estimable structure for society. The two philosophies are so different that accommodation between them is difficult to imagine. And compromise doesn't seem likely.

But there is a solution. It's a little radical, however it should not be dismissed out of hand. It would require the “reformatting” of our democracy into two parts – the first one that views the care of the needy as mandatory, and the second that wants “to be let alone.” Land would be distributed roughly in proportion to the number of those opting for each system with freedom of individuals to move from one to the other at any time, though land redistribution (according to population changes) would occur at fixed times.

Those in the first group – the one that viewed care of the needy as mandatory – would probably consist of those receiving aid from the state, as well as those who considered it their duty to provide such aid. There would eventually be an equalization of all resources so that everyone had a “fair share.”^ix People would, of course, be free to give more to the needy, but there would be certain minimums. There would be no exceptions from the mandates, including members of the government. Education would also be mandatory, but would be provided by the government, which would set the curriculum for it.

In the second group would be all those who want “to be let alone.” While they would be free to give charity, they would not be taxed to do so. Indeed, apart from what is in the Constitution/Bill of Rights, there would be no taxation. Thus, security would be provided by the State. Other services, however, would be provided on a “fee for service” basis. If you wanted your toilets connected to the sewer lines or your garbage collected, there would be a fee. And if you wanted water or other utilities you would pay for them. Schooling would not be free, and it would probably be expensive, but if you had no children you would have no bill.

Clearly there are some details that need to be worked out, but the choice of political philosophy is tempting. After all, choice is what America is all about. And the choice of where to live would give people a chance to “vote with their feet.” Chacun à son goût.^x

'Tis the gift to be simple, 'tis the gift to be free,
'Tis the gift to come down where you ought to be,
And when we find ourselves in the place just right,

'Twill be in the valley of love and delight.^xi

Next episode:  "Fats, Fads, And Futility" -- All I know is what I read in the newspaper.

i     In France it was the potage.

ii    There are those, especially fundamentalists, who think that the scientists, themselves, were drinking a little too much brew when they came up with this explanation.

iii    It was a little like a union. Now we pay our union dues in exchange for the organization's clout. The original ideas were developed by, among others, Grotius, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, but existed long before.

iv    Or some other medium. Nowadays everything can be found on some hand-held electronic device.

v     Whatever that means. It most likely refers to political rights, but even these vary from country to country.

vi    In Leviathan. 1651. Hobbes writes of the need for defense but goes well beyond that.

vii    Thomas Cooley. A Treatise on the Law of Torts, 1880.

viii   “The Right to Privacy,” Harvard Law Review, December 15, 1890.

ix    Whether the poor all over the world would be entitled to move to this Utopia is uncertain, but the ideals it embodies suggest that they would.

x     To each his own soup.

xi    Shaker hymn.

I've Got It Coming

 

There are many different ways to compare conservatives and liberals. I used to believe that liberals were the ones with faith in human nature and a generally optimistic outlook. I used to believe that liberals were more idealistic than conservatives, but now I know that's not true. They're far more realistic.

I used to think that conservatives were rich thieves who viewed everyone else cynically. They were practical, not idealistic, and not contributing their fair share to an America that cared for its citizens. But now I know that, too, isn't true. Youth is optimistic and youth is liberal, and youth sees the two as being related. So I used to think what almost all youth, and many who were a lot older, thoughtⁱ – that America was a land of equality, and all that was necessary to obtain that equality was for the conservatives to get out of the way.

The idea wasn't new. The Founding Fathers had written, and the new nation had adopted, a Constitution that deemed promotion of “the general Welfare” and “the Blessings of Liberty” as important reasons for its existence.ⁱⁱ The expectation of national support for those incapable of caring for their own needs was justified, and was there from the beginning. It was not unreasonable that those lacking them should feel entitled to assistance for food, housing, health care, child care, education, and any other form of assistance they might require. There was even a clause in the Constitution that authorized taxation to “provide for the ... general Welfare.”ⁱⁱⁱ What could be clearer and more fundamental than a national responsibility to provide welfare, and the blessings necessary for all its inhabitants.

The idea wasn't new. The Bible had made it clear that we all had an obligation to help the widow, and the orphan, for they were in need. Perhaps that obligation was a voluntary one, and it was up to all of us to give charity, but the responsibility to do so was not something lightly dismissed. Certainly the widow and the orphan needed our help. It was understandable for them to seek it.

But times have changed since the days of the Bible. What was once the widow and orphan is now anyone who claims to be in need – whether because of student loans, hunger, foreclosure, sickness, lack of a job, lack of a spouse, too many children, and other similar hardships. The needs of those afflicted by these ills of society have resulted not only in quiet suffering but in noisy demonstrations around the country,^iv demonstrations that now also include those suffering from ennui and envy of those who are better off than they. It is, according to them, the rich – the one percent – who are benefiting from American prosperity and denying the remaining ninety-nine percent what the Constitution guarantees. Conservatives may consider charity to be laudable and the proper way to care for those in need, but those who protest don't want charity – they want what is properly theirs and what has been stolen by the rich.

The American system supports that claim. Taxes are collected and used to pay for entitlement programs that finance almost all the needs that people claim. It was probably the government that was the source of the education loan, and it may have been the source of funds for the mortgage of the house that is now in default. There are certainly programs that provide food or food stamps, health care, unemployment insurance, education, and general fiscal assistance. The Constitution guarantees it, and the taxpayers provide it. At least that's the contention.

But that's not the case. I used to believe that in violation of our laws, the conservatives and the rich stole from the poor and they should be made to pay for it. Now I'm not so sure. In fact, I'm now convinced that we've been following the lead of Robin Hood – we are stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, not that that's necessarily bad. I can only conclude that the liberals, who favor such policies, have lost faith in their fellows and no longer trust those who are able to do so, to give charity. So they make it a matter of government policy. It's a practical solution to a problem they perceive. And, in a certain way, it makes sense. But the sense it makes is one of perception and revenge only. Attention is focused on one solution – tax the rich – without looking at other possible solutions. It isn't even likely increasing the taxes on the “one percent” will have a significant impact on their desire to aid the rest. After all, the “rich” are already paying most of the income taxes^v and the others may not pay at all. ^vi That, however, doesn't matter. Their hearts are in the right place, and they're determined to deliver what the Founding Fathers promised.

Except they didn't. The references to “the general Welfare” in the Constitution are both directly linked to “the common Defense.”^vii The “Blessings of Liberty” were probably political rights rather than financial blessings. And taxes were to be collected for the purpose of providing for the common defense and general welfare. They were not intended for feeding the hungry and supporting the poor. That wasn't the Founding Fathers' objective. Congress, on the other hand, has expanded both the concept of taxation and “welfare.” After all, it gets votes. And during the (Franklin) Roosevelt administration it served, to a degree,^viii to limit the damage caused by the Depression. But that was certainly an expansion of the initial mandate.

And by the time the government finished propping up the poor,^ix they had come to depend on the entitlements. If the Constitution didn't guarantee them, we did. The problem, of course, is that we can't afford it. The entitlements are considered too important to end. Poverty should be eliminated and the poor should be no different from anyone else. They've got it coming. We have an obligation to all of those who claim it, and if that means higher taxes, so be it. As long as they're taxes on someone else,^x especially the rich. It looks like the taxes will be on someone else, but that will be future generations. There have to be other solutions, and I'll discuss some of them next week.

Next episode: “Write If You Get Work” -- And hang by your thumbs.^xi

i     And still think.

ii    United States Constitution. Preamble.

iii    Ibid. Article I, section 8.

iv   Indeed, around the world. But those abroad are not covered by the United States Constitution, unless they're American citizens.

v     According to The American, in 2007, the top 10% of earners paid 68% of all income taxes collected. The National Taxpayers Union tells us that it was 69.94% in 2008.

vi   The Associated Press (April 7, 2010) notes that “About 47 percent of U.S. households will pay no federal income taxes for 2009, either because their incomes were too low or because they qualified for enough credits and deductions to eliminate their tax liability, according to projections by a private research group.” Indeed, because of those credits, many households will get more money back than they paid in taxes. Meanwhile, for the same year, “the top 10 percent of earners … paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.”

vii    In the first instance the word “defense” is not capitalized.

viii    World War II was the real solution to the social ills caused by the Depression.

ix    Very appropriately, the government has spent enormous amounts of tax money on bailing out those who are in need.

x     Not me! Tax someone else. I can't afford it.

xi     Bob and Ray.

Full Disclosure

 

Time to come clean. By this time you probably know my biases (especially if – and it's a very unlikely possibility – you've read this blog before), but I thought I'd spell out some of them just in case. That will allow you to disregard whatever doesn't correspond to your own faulty ideas when reading some of my other musings. And it my help to explain some of what appears to be perverse. But like most people I have a more comprehensive grasp of the problems than the solutions. Anyway, this is I.ⁱ

My father was apolitical. It wasn't that he couldn't decide on a particular philosophy or general outlook, nor decide regarding specific issues. He just wasn't interested. At least he never conveyed any interest to his children. My mother, however, was a staunch liberal, and weⁱⁱ learned that perspective from her.

In college almost everyone is a liberal. Especially the professors. So I fit in fine. There were a few conservatives on campus – very few. At least that's what I heard. No one ever admitted to being one.ⁱⁱⁱ Clearly they didn't know the difference between right and wrong. Fortunately I did. I knew that the hungry had to be fed and the naked clothed. They were as much religious concepts as they were political, but religion was praiseworthy then.

Times have changed though. I'm less sure now than I was then. Black and white have become gray. I still want to care for the needy, but I'm not convinced that it's always up to the government to do so. I deplore the selfishness of individuals who have to be forced to give charity by the government's taking of their tax money and turning it into “entitlements,” but I'm not completely convinced that societies were established to enforce philanthropy. I understand our obligation(s) as individuals to help those in need but I recognize the failure of our citizens to fill that need. Does that make it the responsibility of the government? I don't think so, but somewhere along the line the government grew and, like an amoeba, engulfed everything in reach. And with the demands of so many groups for help – and the increasing power of political blocs – it seems likely that there will be more programs instituted to provide for those demands. That provision means bigger government, greater expense, and the loss of more liberties. But that doesn't seem to be a major concern to most citizens.

Why did this occur? From my perspective, liberalism failed – or, more accurately, liberals failed. They seemed to switch their concerns with fads and “squeaky wheels.” It became more important for them to address the demands of those they considered to be oppressed, than to determine if their demands were justified. They failed in matters of both national^iv and international^v interest. Like the rest of us, they are inconsistent in their claims and crusades, but the operating principle seems to be that if you're poor^vi you're needy and oppressed, and if you're not poor, you're an oppressor. Except for themselves.

Speaking of international issues, as I mentioned above in passing, it's hard to ignore the disorders around the globe – some of them out-and-out tyrannies and wars. Except for sporadic American involvement though, many of them tend to be ignored by our own liberals and those of other nations, who are focused on blaming Israel for most of the world's troubles.^vii Lest there be any question, I am a Jew and a Zionist.^viii My sympathies are not with OPEC and others who would control the world.^ix Consequently I usually walk to shul each day^x for morning services not only for the health benefits^xi but also in order to decrease the amount I send to the oil producing states – many of them rich Arab kingdoms that would rather condemn Israel than help those they call their Palestinian brothers.^xii

A final note which will tell you a little more about me: I'm a hermit. I don't especially care for people and certainly have no interest in talking about them or to them. I'm a lousy guest since I am unlikely to spend much time conversing with others. I particularly dislike small talk. So I'm not the hit of any party. But if that knowledge means fewer invitations that's fine with me. It's hard to keep coming up with original reasons for refusing them. (A couple of other things. I'm retired – a lapsed radiologist. As you can guess from this blog, I enjoy writing, and reading and listening to music . And choral singing.^xiii I've been doing that since college. It's a good way to sing without being heard individually so I don't embarrass myself too much. Of course choral singing means that I have to interact with other people but I keep that to a minimum.)

In summary, then, I'm an antisocial Zionist neocon with little regard for a government that is moving leftward toward greater control. I'm not as happy as most seem to be in sacrificing our liberties and the assets of our grandchildren so we can feel good and generous now – with their money.

Now you know. But I suspect that most people don't care.^xiv Certainly, for the most part, the “younger generation” doesn't care about my opinions^xv They don't realize that wisdom comes with age. They'll learn that later – when they're older and are ignored by those younger than they.

Next episode: “Writer's Bl...” – Whatever.

i     Correct grammar often sounds funny.

ii     My older brother and I.

iii    It was claimed that you could put all the school's Republicans in a telephone booth. (I don't think public telephones exist any longer in this age of cellular communication.) I suspect that the characterization was far from accurate, but it was quite colorful.

iv    Public responsibility for all the “ills” of the poor – both physical and economic.

v    Although selective in the causes they espoused – mass annihilation of black Africans seems to escape their notice – the general pattern is to trumpet the plight of selected population groups. At present they espouse the “Palestinians,” a group that didn't exist before 1967 (except to indicate the Jews in pre-1948 Palestine), and parrot their anti-Israel propaganda while completely denying any Arab or Muslim responsibility for the situation. Such would be contrary to the message they are trying to send.

vi      And a member of one of the groups they are currently supporting.

vii   Interestingly therefore, but not surprisingly, liberals have adopted the poor, “humiliated” Palestinians as their poster children for victims of oppression. Nothing that they do, however barbaric it may be, is worthy of note or condemnation. Only the actions of the Israelis, their “oppressors,” merits censure.

viii   I suspect that makes me part of a vast conspiracy though I never thought of myself that way.

ix      Others, who would like to control both geography and the world's economies, accuse the Jews – minute in numbers and influence in comparison to themselves – of doing that, but they are only trying to distract the world from reality.

x       A little over half a mile in each direction.

xi      If in fact there are any. I'm not fully convinced.

xii    I have been accused of trying to “shaft the sheiks,” but, unfortunately, I lack the power to do so. In any event, though, I feel better for what I'm doing. I just need a few billion others.

xiii    The latter few you probably can't guess.

xiv   Which is why I don't tell anyone about this blog. I do it for myself, not for them.

xv    Indeed, I doubt that my own generation gives a damn.