Wednesday, May 11, 2016
Excellemt piece from Walter Russell Mead
A few excerpts:
"The state of our union can be summed up pretty easily: Democratic policy ideas don’t work, and the Republican Party is melting down."
"The more “Democratic” an institution is these days, on the whole the less well it is working. What institution in the United States has been under Democratic control longer and more thoroughly than the failing public school systems of major cities? Or their police departments?
"Yet against the backdrop of failing Democratic policies and institutions, the collapse of the Republican Party into political and intellectual incoherence is all the more striking. The Democrats, for all their inability to achieve their stated end of social progress through their chosen means of good governance, are clearly more competent at the essential business of party management than their GOP rivals. The failures of Democratic governance are so apparent, and the public unhappiness with the cronyism and inequality of interest group liberalism so deep, that organizing an effective opposition should be a fairly easy task—but even that basic objective has eluded the contemporary GOP."
"American culture was originally shaped by a set of Christian and Enlightenment ideas, sometimes in tension with each other, that nevertheless provided a framework for common social and political discussion. We’ve moved away from this classic American synthesis without finding an effective replacement—if indeed a replacement can be found—and both the spiritual and intellectual roots of American life are growing more and more attenuated."
WRM's piece is definitely worth reading.
Wednesday, May 04, 2016
Trump goes left
Tuesday, May 03, 2016
Cruz quits. Guess what follows.
Cruz quit on the day when Donald Trump claimed Cruz' father assassinated President Kennedy. Cruz has just turned the Republican nomination over to a lying maniac. And what kind of people would, today, support Trump?
Not me. Trump can go to hell, and I hope he does, soon. May he take his supporters with him.
What follows? Trump will swing left, and remain crazy. Heaven knows what his supporters will do, they seem able to absorb anything. Clinton's supporters are similarly capable of tolerating anything, since it's quite clear the Clintons traded favors for millions in "speaker fees," and Hillary Clinton repeatedly and knowingly violated federal law and compromised national security. An enormous amount of dirt on Trump is about to surface, and Trump will no longer be given a pass in the media. I think it will go very badly for him. I predict, contrary to my January prediction, that Hillary Clinton will win. I don't know what to make of predictions that a Trump loss would cause the GOP to lose both houses of Congress. I certainly hope not, but if so, I imagine that the Democrats will try to quickly lock in Supreme Court nominees, gun control, a national health care system, and draconian energy regulations. Civil war follows any attempt at gun confiscation, and could well follow crackdowns on religious groups that don't surrender on the homosexual issue.
But these specific predictions are just guesses. What isn't a guess is that if either of these thugs becomes president there'll be trouble. I can't imagine how the United States could have smooth sailing ahead.
Thursday, April 28, 2016
I am sorry to write that. I have followed his excellent blog Sipsey Street Irregulars, for a long time, and all through that time he's had cancer. It is finally getting him, it appears. Mike Vanderboegh is a hero. He's the founder of the Three Percent movement, the loose grouping of those of us who realize that statists are bent on totalitarianism, and are determined never to acquiesce to this. Perhaps we can stop them politically, but if not, just let them try to enslave an armed population. The name, Three Percent, comes from the percentage of Americans who actively resisted the greatest military power of the 18th century, George III's Britain. This tiny band reshaped world history and ushered in the greatest period of liberty the world has ever known.
Vanderboegh, a libertarian and Christian, laid out some very well thought out doctrines for resisting tyranny, both from a moral and philosophical viewpoint, and from a strategic and practical one. He also is one of two men who exposed and publicized Obama's "Fast and Furious" scheme to ship weapons to Mexico in order to fabricate an excuse for gun control in the U.S. (The other is David Codrea.) I follow Vanderboegh's writings and communicated with him a bit. I have learned a great deal from him. I also have found him to be one of the greatest sources of inspiration; he's a man who is never intimidated and always courageous. I love his fighting spirit. It's contagious.
It appears Mike Vanderboegh is in the last days of his life, as his cancer has spread. While the purpose of my blog has never been to get anyone to do anything, I will ask that any reader who has cash to spare to donate to him (I've done this myself). If you pray, say one of thanks for him. And if nothing else, take a second to remember, with gratitude, people who do difficult and dangerous things on behalf of liberty for all of us...and resolve to live up to the standards they've set.
Note: Here's Vanderboegh's original announcement from January of this year. Vanderboegh's son has taken over managing his blog, so it's still up-and-running and happily will remain on the UC blog list. And be sure to read his Three Percent Catechism here.
Cruz-Fiorina...Freedom has Champions!
The Marxist, Sanders, looks to be collapsing. The fascist strongman, Trump, has mindless followers but a campaign in disarray, and Lewandowski and Manafort battle each other for turf instead of winning delegates. Trump won't win 1,237 delegates, and Cruz will win the nomination on the second or third ballot. Criminal and Alinskyite Clinton will have no chance, once she is either indicted or confronted with Ted Cruz in a debate. If she's indicted, her replacement will find a party in chaos, and they'll collapse. Or so I predict.
Theses are, unquestionably, very dangerous times. GOP leaders such as the despicable bonehead Boehner and Karl Rove and Fox News are pulling out all all stops to block Cruz. Trump conceivably could win the Republican nomination, leaving us with a choice between tyrants. Or a brokered convention could give us a dunce such as Romney or Ryan. If Obama's DoJ does hand Clinton an indictment and leave us with a Trump vs. Warren or Biden race, nothing is predictable. Regardless, the only pro-liberty candidates with a chance of winning are Cruz-Fiorina, and for them to be in the race at this stage is very happy news. It is the first election since at least 1984 for which by this point, late April, a small-government candidate still is in the running.
Cruz-Fiorina -- Unforeseen Contingencies' dream ticket!
Sunday, April 03, 2016
The last 300 years: the anti-liberal enterprise
The entire staff of Unforeseen Contingencies agrees it is time to take a break from discussing the 2016 election, and return to matters more philosophical. Today a friend of mine sent me an interesting historical essay on the rise of American fascism. I don't know anything about the credentials of R.G. Price (the author), but you can read the piece here. (It is pretty good, and certainly interesting.)
I mostly won't comment on it, except for two points: first, the author's overall interpretation of the last 300 years of intellectual history, and second, the author's claim that the Holodomor (the famine suffered by Ukraine in 1932-33) is a fabrication of Nazi propagandists and William Randolph Hearst.
Regarding the Holodomor, the 1932-1933 famine in Ukraine was not a fiction concocted by Hearst or the Nazis. As I pointed out to my friend, I lived in Ukraine, and the famine is remembered there – obviously none of my students experienced it, but they knew the family stories and spoke of it. And it was discussed in public, in the media for example. The facts weren't in question. Also, The Black Book of Communism, (Courtois et al.) Chapter 8, uses Soviet archival materials to document the famine. Robert Conquest's Harvest of Sorrow documents the famine with other materials. And there are many other sources that document the 1932 famine.
But that's secondary. What's all this about 300 years of intellectual history? In a nutshell, Price argues that the Enlightenment gave rise to (classical) liberalism and capitalism. This dominated the Western world until crises of capitalism gave rise to socialism (including communism), a reaction against capitalism. In turn, Price sees fascism (including the American variant espoused by Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt) as a reaction against socialism.
Close, but no cigar. If the goal is to make sense of things, there's a much simpler and clearer interpretation of the last 300 years of thought. Here it is. All political movements after liberalism (libertarianism) are attempts to get rid of unalienable individual rights and return to rule by elites, to re-instate the equivalent of the divine right of kings.
Prior to the Enlightenment, the world was largely dominated by the idea that the king, or emperor, or czar, or chief, or tribal leader, reigned supreme. Perhaps that's not exactly so; some hunter-gatherers might have had checks on the powers of the chiefs, but you wouldn't want to try explaining these checks to a European king, Russian Czar, Mughal, Chinese, or Japanese emperor, Turkish sultan, or Arab caliph. The generally acknowledged proper order of things was that the ruler ruled, and everyone else obeyed.
The Enlightenment ruined this "natural order." The Enlightenment project of applying reason to everything upset it. Careful thought showed that the claims to authority made by those in power were merely hot air. To the contrary, individuals have self-ownership; we aren't the property of leaders. In particular, think of the work of John Locke in his Two Treatises on Government, and the implementation of his ideas by the American founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Similarly, the Enlightenment showed that a society based on recognizing and respecting individual rights to self ownership can function well, and in fact much better than one based on centralized power. In particular, think of the work of Adam Smith, and his Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations. All of this was the birth of liberalism, a.k.a. libertarianism. It is, as some political scientists have pointed out, the only genuinely revolutionary idea developed in political philosophy in the last 2,000 years.
This idea is extremely important, it is liberating and -- for those who liked the old system, either because they want to rule or want to be ruled -- problematic and threatening. Decentralized authority, personal autonomy, freedom of action for the individual, private property rights, free markets -- these are problems for those who would "govern," i.e. substitute their own judgment for that of others in matters pertaining to how those others should live. Socialism, progressivism, fascism, islamism, some kinds of conservatism, and all the other illiberalisms, are simply reactions against (real) liberalism, attempts to get the genie back into the bottle and restore hierarchy instead of equality of rights, equality before the law. In other words, socialism (including Marxism), fascism, Nazism, islamism, progressivism, and some forms of conservatism are all attempts to cancel individual rights and restore hierarchical power. Some are democratic and allow "the people" to vote for the authoritarian leaders (as if voting gives one any real power) and some not -- but all are reactions against individual liberty, i.e. against private property rights applied to all and against free trading on the market as the central organizing principle of society.
This is the big picture of the last 300 years of intellectual history in matters political -- the battle of reason and liberalism against statism in all its forms. I think it correctly and clearly identifies the fundamental issues. I can't claim to have invented this analysis -- one can find these ideas in Mises, for example, and Bastiat even , although he predates many of the subsequent illiberalisms. I've believed something along these lines for a very long time, but fairly recently I saw this argument -- that all political philosophies after liberalism (libertarianism) are attempts to get rid of unalienable individual rights and return to rule by elites -- explicitly stated by philosopher John Pepple, and he was citing science fiction writer Sarah Hoyt (I cannot currently find either piece, unfortunately). I recently had the opportunity to ask noted economist and economic historian Deirdre McCloskey about this thesis, and she agreed that it really does describe political intellectual history since the Enlightenment. In addition, it dovetails with her argument that the ethics of freedom and markets and personal responsibility -- the bourgeois virtues -- are what led to modern civilization, peace, and prosperity.
With respect to the analysis of R.G. Price mentioned at the outset, socialism was indeed a reaction against the free market individualism of classical liberalism, but so is fascism. Fascism is very closely related to socialism, including Marxism. Both are products of reaction against capitalism and against Lockeian individual rights, and both are products of Hegelianism. It isn't surprising that Mussolini began as a Marxist, or that Hitler and other Nazi leaders observed that they found it easiest to recruit followers from Marxist ranks. Similarly, note that American progressives have their intellectual roots in the German Historical School, which in turn has its roots in Hegelianism and in nationalist economics, both of which are reactions against reason, the Enlightenment, and the laissez-faire economics that emerged from these. It's worth noting that prior to the free market doctrines developed by the Physiocrats, Smith, and the Classical economists, the dominant economic system was Mercantilism (in German, Kameralism), the system of rent-seeking and government favoritism that now goes by the misnomer "crony capitalism." Also contra Price, the "crises of laissez-faire capitalism" (e.g. Great Depression) to which he attributes the rise of socialism were clearly crises of mercantilism, resulting from government interference in the free market.
Mercantilism, socialism, Marxism, fascism, progressivism, crony capitalism ... while they differ in exactly how society should be ruled, all agree that the elites ought to be doing it, and to hell with individual liberty, unalienable rights, strict respect for private property rights, and personal responsibility. All would replace what Mises calls contractual organization with hierarchical organization, replace voluntary exchange as the fundamental rule in social organization with compulsion.
I think there are reasons why this anti-liberal enterprise will fail. But that will have to wait for my post on the next 300 years.
Picture: John Locke
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Bad week for Trump
1) Today Donald Trump's campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, was arrested for battery, in an attack on reporter Michelle Fields. Somehow the Lewandowski spotted a dangerous threat that was missed by both the Secret Service agent between him and Fields as well as Trump's private bodyguards. Either that, or Lewandowski is a thug who was afraid Trump would say something stupid in response to Fields' question about Affirmative Action.
2) Better yet, only a few days earlier, Trump reneged on his pledge to impose tariffs on China, claiming it's a bluff for negotiating purposes (he's a great negotiator, really understands the "art of the deal:" always publicly state that your threats are just bluffs before negotiations begin, that's Trump Rule #1). This was during an interview with conservative Charlie Sykes of WMTJ radio, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Trump, who promises us that as president he'll surround himself with only "the best people," apparently can't find assistants sufficiently competent to research the interviewer they've set him up with. (Sykes is a signatory to #Never Trump.) (So am I.)
Most of the publicity on this failed interview for Trump has focused on other issues, but this one is really poison for Trump. One of his "signature" positions has been his vow to "beat" China in trade deals. Anyone who understands the basic economics of international trade knows that Trump's perspective of "winner-loser" in international trade is an old fallacy that was expose in the 18th Century, but now he's admitted -- to both the American people and to the Chinese -- that his threatened trade war is all bluster anyway. So much for the "Trump" signature. (Isn't the "Trump" brand the bulk of his assets?)
3) And even better, Stephanie Cegielski, communications director for the pro-Trump Make America Great Again SuperPAC, has denounced Trump as a clueless and dangerous demagogue. Here's how she characterizes his run for office: "What was once Trump's desire to rank second place to send a message to America and to increase his power as a businessman has nightmarishly morphed into a charade that is poised to do irreparable damage to this country if we do not stop this campaign in its tracks."
And here's how she characterizes Trump, whom she knows: "The hard truth is: Trump only cares about Trump."
4) And best of all, it's becoming clear that Trump will not win the majority 1,237 delegates needed to become the Republican nominee on the first ballot at the convention, and that on a second ballot most of his delegates will defect. If Rule 40b of the Republican National Committee's rules for the convention is not repealed, only candidates who win majorities in at least eight states can be nominated. That means Cruz and Trump. Cruz, and to a lesser extent Kasich, are managing to get supportive delegates onto rul-making committees, while Trump, with very poor connections in the GOP, is not. If rules are changed, it won't be in Trump's favor.
All of this is bad news for Trump, and for that segment of his supporters who would support him even if he murdered someone on Fifth Avenue. Of course, these are the people who, Trump warns us, will riot should he not receive the nomination (even if he doesn't win the required 1,237). Trump supporters will riot when Trump loses?! Like everything else he says, these are meaningless talking points, just bluster. When Trump loses, assuming Trump supporters actually wanted to riot, what will they riot against? Will they burn their own neighborhoods? (They can't, the "Black Lives" movement has already patented this). Ransack McDonalds and Walmarts, perhaps? That's almost (but not quite) as likely as Kasich supporters burning down Trump Tower when Kasich loses. Hah! Yes, bring on the "Trump riots!"
Friday, March 25, 2016
More thoughts on war against Iran
Currently the United States government plans criminal prosecutions against the Iranians responsible for the cyberattacks. Suppose instead they had flown Iranian Air force bombers in an attack on the United States. Would the appropriate response be criminal prosecutions of the pilots, while ignoring the fact that they are agents of the Iranian government? I'll answer my own question: no.
Even if one doesn't think the attack sufficiently serious to go to war, from the perspective of the Iranian government, they've engaged in an attack on the United States, an act of war, and have learned that they are able to do so with impunity. The consequences and implications of this are horrendous. A hostile theocratic dictatorship, and a major exporter of terror and guerrilla operations (a fair amount of the latter is mislabeled "terror") understands it can attack the United States without serious consequences. Not only Iran learns from this, everyone does -- including Russia, China, North Korea, Daesh, et al.
To avoid this, at the very least the president should have ordered a retaliatory attack, e.g. a few cruise missiles on Tehran, or perhaps destruction of the Iranian naval base on Farsi Island. I strongly oppose unilateral actions by the executive branch for the obvious reason that the Constitution authorizes the Congress to declare war, not the president; every war since WWII has been unConstitutional. The United States have not been at war, even while waging war. Given that a foreign power attacked targets in the United States, a declaration of war is certainly appropriate. One might disagree reasonably with my suggested war aims, but I can't imagine any reasonable disagreement with my -- what, call for war? -- no, my insistence that since Iran is already making war on the United States, we respond by defending ourselves. The war is already underway, whether we want it or not.
Disagree? Then how bad does an Iranian attack have to be, how much destruction must it cause, before it's worthy of a response? Iran is certainly developing intercontinental ballistic missiles -- should we wait until it has them, armed with nuclear warheads, before we respond? Should we wait until Washington D.C. is a smoldering radioactive wasteland before responding? (OK, I know, that's tempting in a way; but only in fantasy is that a solution to out-of-control government.) I cannot see any reasonable argument against retaliation. I can't see any reasonable argument against a declaration of war.