
Election Day + One, 2008
By CJ Alderton
By CJ Alderton
Note: I take a break from writing about humor in order to do a sort of self-exorcism in regard to politics and the season we each have just endured. I am so looking forward to hearing once more about the virtues of Viagra, Preparation H and local car commercials. Anything - ANYTHING besides one more universe ending, back-stabbing political drone. Bear with me this brief rant. This should hold me for about 48 months. I hope to be funny again soon. :) Here we go...
_______
I have said little during this overheated, hyperbolic political season regarding my views -save to family and a few friends. There is a natural bias against encouraging the clergy to become too politically engaged. Add to that bias my own advanced talent in regard to conflict avoidance, and you have the perfect ingredients for what appears an apathetic sideliner. I am anything but…What follows is my reflective apercu at some sort of resolution regarding the seismic shifts that have occurred in the last few months. This is also my own humble plea for a return to conservatism – rightly defined. Let’s begin there… (If you consider yourself more liberal in your persuasions, please don’t abandon my project just yet. I believe that we may be “good friends well met” before we’re finished).
The etymology of the word conservatism is found in its verbal root: “to conserve.” The dictionary definition says this: “the disposition to retain what is established and to practice a policy of gradualism rather than abrupt change.” A true conservative conserves that which is good and elemental in a society, in a family, a church, a business or even a baseball team. And, a true conservative understands that any change carries the risk of unseen consequences; thus, it is wise to move toward change in a thoughtful and measured fashion. Because of the advanced pace of change in the past few decades, the late William F. Buckley, that erudite conservative voice for over a half century, described his task as standing astride culture and yelling, “Stop.” This conservative sensibility is not, nor should it be the exclusive domain of either the Republicans or the Democrats. To the extent that one is comfortable with the etymology of the word conservative, a “liberal” could be called a conservative. (A good read of history proves this to be true. In some countries, liberal actually means conservative).
Operational definitions are important. That is why we should leave the definitions of words in the hands of those who give us our dictionaries. Unfortunately, the word “conservative” has picked up a few barnacles the past few years, losing - as has so many words - its original meaning. It has come to signify: mean-spirited; selfish; greedy; bigoted and far-right. By its etymology, it is not that.
On a practical note, most of us live out the day to day affairs of life as conservatives. Conservatism in our daily lives means that we are pursuing a kind of peaceful & predictable equilibrium. There are things in life – many things - that we like to have “stay put.” We like them the way we are. We work hard; we pay our bills, fix up our house and mess around in our yards so that we can establish a place that is comfortable and predictable. We frequent a certain coffee shop or restaurant – not because of its novelty – but because of its predictability. If someone were to drive around and do donuts in our yard and re-arrange our house – and if our coffee shop began serving watered down drinks – we would be upset. Why? Because something peaceful and predictable – something that works – has been disturbed. That is conservatism.
So, let’s return to the definition of the word conservative for a moment: “the disposition to retain what is established and to practice a policy of gradualism rather than abrupt change.” Please note the last word of the definition – the word, “change.” That little word has been the catchphrase of one side of the political combatants this political season. It has been, to a lesser degree, employed by the other side as well.
When our founding fathers gathered to do their own version of blogging, viz. diaries, and books, The Constitution and such – they were doing so with a very cosmopolitan world view as a backdrop. They were men who had witnessed the devastation and tyranny of a government system that had become incredibly domineering. These were men of letters. Many were fluent in several languages. Nearly all were entrepreneurial in character. As they formed up their new union they tried their very best to codify a system of government that would safeguard liberties which would allow future citizens to advance in life as far as their own talents and energies allowed them. Their understanding of a good government was one which preserved the right to follow after life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness with as few restrictions as possible.
It was the over-reach of the British government that helped foment the rebellion. There were simply too many rules, too many demands, and too many affronts to personal liberties that oppressed the human spirit. In addition, our founders became highly suspicious of a government that would try to curry favor from the people by promising to do for them those things they were capable of doing for themselves. They feared, as they wrote our founding documents, that there would come a day when the people of the United States would, one by one, weaken and surrender their liberties in exchange for more government solutions and hand-outs. In a prophetic look down the road, Thomas Jefferson expressed these fears by saying :
“Nor should [a legislative body] be deluded by the integrity of their own purposes and conclude that… unlimited powers will never be abused because [they] themselves are not disposed to abuse them. They should look forward to a time, and that not a distant one, when corruption in this, as in the country from which we derive our origin, will have seized the heads of government and be spread by them through the body of the people, when they will purchase the voices of the people and make them pay the price. Human nature is the same on every side of the Atlantic, and will be alike influenced by the same causes.” - Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIII, 1782. ME 2:164
Our nation has grown to almost three hundred million people. Yet, much of our lives are determined by the few hundred people who make up the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government. As a nation, we have gone the way of other failed cultures by asking for more and more government involvement in our lives – just as Jefferson had feared. There is a predictable result to all of this: The more government we ask for, the more we are governed.
Pick any issue that you can think of and I can guarantee that there is a warehouse full of career bureaucrats wheedling away at policies who will eagerly rush in to: constrict, restrict, plan, fine, complicate, hinder, disallow, and tax that enterprise. Government, i.e., governing others, is a tumor that can only grow. It knows no other function. This governmental creep has often been compared to a pig. But perhaps a better analogy is a sheep. A sheep has no natural mechanism for signaling to its brain that it is full. It will literally eat itself to death. To save the sheep, the farmer has to “stick” it by cutting open its belly and pulling out the fermenting gorge. (Although somewhat tempted, I will not chase that analogy any further).
I have no political home these days because both parties have proven themselves ravenous sheep. Granted, one sheep seems to be further skilled in its gluttony – but that is merely a matter of degree – not intent. Both of their compasses are pointed at the “all you can eat” buffet. Why do I say this? -Because this political gluttony is endemic to both Republicans and Democrats. Each side promises those things which will perpetuate until death political careers. And we, the people, continue to leave the gate open for our particular favorite sheep.
Let me speak plainly. The old maxim: “All politics are local” underscores this point. We might loathe a political hack such as Republican Senator Ted Stevens who, while convicted of seven felonies, brazenly chose to defend his long-held seat in the senate. Or, we may de-cry the boorish behavior of Senate Majority Leader, Democrat Harry Reid, who has lined his pockets with favorable land deals but has managed to avoid any investigations because of the power he wields. Yet, there is little we can do about them unless we happen to live in their state. And they, skilled at bringing home to their own constituency a few pieces of political pork, continue to get re-elected, ad infinitum. We who have asked for our little piece of the pork find ourselves incrementally more dependent on and obligated to our pet sheep. We despise another state’s sheep. Another state hates our sheep. Because we are not able to vote out another’s sheep (which would be a grand idea!) we become more and more governed. Now and then the electorate rises up to vote in a President who plays the conservative card to remedy this frustration – but the conservatives elected to the highest office invariably turn out to be poorly named.
What is distressing about the past few months is that the checks and balances meant to impede government overreach have been blurred beyond distinction. A supposedly conservative President Bush has, on his watch, brought the country to a place where nationalization of our economic sectors is not only seen as necessary, but good. In the past, when a tin-pot dictator in another country has nationalized his countries energy supplies and infrastructure – and in so doing has booted out American companies who had made massive capital investments – both Republicans and Democrats have decried such actions with great alacrity. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is the most recent example. To have heard Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer – a dependable Bush-basher - defend President Bush a couple of years ago against the rants of Chavez was refreshing…and rare.
But here we are: a nation of failed banks, strapped hedge funds, and tightened credit markets - a stock market that has shed trillions of dollars of people’s retirements - and what we are promised is more government. The very people who led us into this swamp are now asking us to trust them again. And congress, right on cue, reacted in a predictable fashion to the 700 billion dollar bailout plan. With all of that money in play the sheep lined up for the buffet. At one point there were 2000 proposed earmarks attached to the bailout. An earmark is a barnacle that is added to a piece of legislation by a local politician that…brings home money…to his or her constituents…so that he or she can get re-elected…and; ad. inf., ad naus.
The most disquieting thing about this election is that we have had presidential candidates promising to act like congress, i.e., to act like sheep. Both candidates promised more government help and more government solutions. This isn’t change. It is the old buffet system on steroids. One of the reasons that only two Senators had ever been elected President in our nation’s history was the wise understanding within the electorate that these Senators were too accustomed to standing in line at the buffet table. With the Senatorial halls being peopled with folks who had little experience or appreciation of restraint, the good judgment of the American people leaned more toward governors. Governors, it was thought, had at least some skill at operating a brake pedal. We have had no such choice in this election. Senators we have been given.
Moreover, neither has owned a business or have had to worry about making a payroll. And, I am sure neither of them has read the 18th Century classic by Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations. Had they done so, they would understand that prosperity flows from liberty and that liberty produces liberality, i.e. more jobs for more people. Government cannot create jobs that produce. Government can only create tax-supported bureaucracies that consume. But, government can play an important role by getting out of the way. The current electorate seems anxious for just the opposite. I was watching the news the other night and heard a supporter of President-elect Obama say this: “When Barak is elected, I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car or paying my mortgage. If I help him, he is going to help me.” Oh really? She has inadvertently stated the quid pro quo - perfectly.
As I mentioned earlier – I am done with political parties. If I could bring back the Whigs, I would do so. They believed in the genius and energy of the common person to solve his or her own problems and to create wealth for all by hard work and ingenuity. They were resistant to a large, intrusive government that would propose to dictate every facet of life and to involve itself in every challenge. That is a foreign idea in our present political climate to both the elected and the electorate. Professional politicians have a vested interest in sustained dependence. As that dependence grows, the political machinery can mold the willing recipients of the bread-crumbs thus cast into whatever they wish.
C.S Lewis foresaw this in his remarkable series of lectures to a somewhat hostile audience in England, and later published in the book: The Abolition of Man. Few people have read that book these days – even Christians. They find it too difficult. (A more humorous version of these thoughts is found in Lewis’ work: That Hideous Strength). That is a shame because in it, Lewis presciently describes our current situation with these words:
“But the mind-molders of the new age will be armed with the powers of an omnicompetent state and an irresistible technique: we shall get at last a race of conditioners who can cut all posterity in what shape they please. "
As I mentioned earlier – I am done with political parties. If I could bring back the Whigs, I would do so. They believed in the genius and energy of the common person to solve his or her own problems and to create wealth for all by hard work and ingenuity. They were resistant to a large, intrusive government that would propose to dictate every facet of life and to involve itself in every challenge. That is a foreign idea in our present political climate to both the elected and the electorate. Professional politicians have a vested interest in sustained dependence. As that dependence grows, the political machinery can mold the willing recipients of the bread-crumbs thus cast into whatever they wish.
C.S Lewis foresaw this in his remarkable series of lectures to a somewhat hostile audience in England, and later published in the book: The Abolition of Man. Few people have read that book these days – even Christians. They find it too difficult. (A more humorous version of these thoughts is found in Lewis’ work: That Hideous Strength). That is a shame because in it, Lewis presciently describes our current situation with these words:
“But the mind-molders of the new age will be armed with the powers of an omnicompetent state and an irresistible technique: we shall get at last a race of conditioners who can cut all posterity in what shape they please. "
–CS Lewis The Abolition of Man
Have we crossed into that moment in history where we are now unwitting subjects to the cultural conditioners? I would say yes. As the political parties dole back to us a fraction of the money and sweat they take from us – those political gifts will come with conditions – the quid pro quo will be enacted. Nothing will be off limits to the future corrosion of liberties – food, drink, transportation, industries, allowable speech, values, morals, risks, income – all will be moved in a direction to please the faceless, hum-drum cultural conditioners who work their craft in and through elected officials. Thomas Jefferson warned against this as well…
[A very capital defect in a constitution is when] all the powers of government, legislative, executive and judiciary result [go] to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation [relief] that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. One hundred and seventy-three despots [congress] would surely be as oppressive as one. - Thomas Jefferson: Note on Virginia Q.XIII, 1782. ME 2:162
If you sense a strong libertarian streak in what I am saying, you might be right. Be that as it may, my appeal for true change in the form of smaller government along with neutered and spayed politicians has a recent historical precursor in my beloved Ireland. Having for centuries been the impoverished step-sister of Europe and Great Britain, a few years ago the Celts decided to try something different. They decided to abolish the practice of taxing individuals and corporations in a confiscatory way and to reduce their nanny state chain of rules and procedures to a minimum. In addition, they decided to invest in education in such a way that it moved their young people toward marketable, high-tech skills. Businesses flocked to Ireland. The result has become one of the greatest stories of financial prosperity in the history of Europe. It is known as the “Celtic Tiger” and has moved the Republic of Ireland to the top of the heap. It is a model for what could happen here if the people – you and me – actually rose up and demanded less.
So there – I have given you my political rant – unasked for and perhaps unwelcome. I realize that I run the risk of being pigeon-holed within the ranks of those old men who sit around in their tweeds, sipping brandy, smoking their pipes and saying: “Harrrumph, Harrrumph.” To this accusation I would cheerfully reply: “Hear, Hear.”
Be well blessed…
-CJ
P.S. My treat – other great political quotes for you to enjoy…
“If you don’t read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.” - Mark Twain
“I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.” - Winston Churchill
“A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”
Have we crossed into that moment in history where we are now unwitting subjects to the cultural conditioners? I would say yes. As the political parties dole back to us a fraction of the money and sweat they take from us – those political gifts will come with conditions – the quid pro quo will be enacted. Nothing will be off limits to the future corrosion of liberties – food, drink, transportation, industries, allowable speech, values, morals, risks, income – all will be moved in a direction to please the faceless, hum-drum cultural conditioners who work their craft in and through elected officials. Thomas Jefferson warned against this as well…
[A very capital defect in a constitution is when] all the powers of government, legislative, executive and judiciary result [go] to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation [relief] that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. One hundred and seventy-three despots [congress] would surely be as oppressive as one. - Thomas Jefferson: Note on Virginia Q.XIII, 1782. ME 2:162
If you sense a strong libertarian streak in what I am saying, you might be right. Be that as it may, my appeal for true change in the form of smaller government along with neutered and spayed politicians has a recent historical precursor in my beloved Ireland. Having for centuries been the impoverished step-sister of Europe and Great Britain, a few years ago the Celts decided to try something different. They decided to abolish the practice of taxing individuals and corporations in a confiscatory way and to reduce their nanny state chain of rules and procedures to a minimum. In addition, they decided to invest in education in such a way that it moved their young people toward marketable, high-tech skills. Businesses flocked to Ireland. The result has become one of the greatest stories of financial prosperity in the history of Europe. It is known as the “Celtic Tiger” and has moved the Republic of Ireland to the top of the heap. It is a model for what could happen here if the people – you and me – actually rose up and demanded less.
So there – I have given you my political rant – unasked for and perhaps unwelcome. I realize that I run the risk of being pigeon-holed within the ranks of those old men who sit around in their tweeds, sipping brandy, smoking their pipes and saying: “Harrrumph, Harrrumph.” To this accusation I would cheerfully reply: “Hear, Hear.”
Be well blessed…
-CJ
P.S. My treat – other great political quotes for you to enjoy…
“If you don’t read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.” - Mark Twain
“I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.” - Winston Churchill
“A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”
- George Bernard Shaw
“A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.” - G. Gordon Liddy
“Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.” - James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)
“Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.” - Douglas Casey, (Classmate of Bill Clinton at Georgetown University)
“Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.” - Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801-1850)
“If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free!”
- P.J. O’Rourke
“In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.” - Voltaire (1764)
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried.” -Winston Churchill
“The statesman [politician] who should attempt to direct private people in what matter they employ their capital would…assume an authority which could safely be trusted to no single person, to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to exercise it…To prohibit great people from making all that they can of every part of their own produce…in the way that they judge most advantageous to themselves, is a manifest violation of the most sacred rights of mankind…” –Adam Smith
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the
Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” - Abraham Lincoln
“A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.” - G. Gordon Liddy
“Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.” - James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)
“Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.” - Douglas Casey, (Classmate of Bill Clinton at Georgetown University)
“Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.” - Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801-1850)
“If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free!”
- P.J. O’Rourke
“In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.” - Voltaire (1764)
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried.” -Winston Churchill
“The statesman [politician] who should attempt to direct private people in what matter they employ their capital would…assume an authority which could safely be trusted to no single person, to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to exercise it…To prohibit great people from making all that they can of every part of their own produce…in the way that they judge most advantageous to themselves, is a manifest violation of the most sacred rights of mankind…” –Adam Smith
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the
Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” - Abraham Lincoln
3 comments:
You don't have to bring back the Whigs. It's already been done. Perhaps you could give political parties one more chance...
http://modernwhig.org
Once again, I have to commend you. Your eloquence is not only delightful to read, but informative and, as always, makes one think for more than a minute or two about what is being said. Two biblical references come to mind in regarding to getting what we ask for - first "you have not because you ask not". The reverse is also true - we get what we ask for. The second is when Israel, against the heart of God, asked for a king. We have, as a country, asked for a king - to be ruled and governed and taken care of. It seems to me we've been given one with some of the attributes of Saul. God did not desire for His people to have a king other than Him. He doesn't change. In asking for a king, we say that He is not sufficient. Having been given a king, we must now pray that he has the heart of David and the wisdom of Solomon....and that God's mercy be poured out upon us in the days ahead.
Here's a few more quotes i was reminded of while reading...
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
--Alexis de Tocqueville
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.
--John Adams
Post a Comment