No matter who ends up being president on January 20, 2013 -- whether it is Barack Obama or Mitt Romney -- Americans will still be dense enough to look at the executive branch to be the apt problem solver, even if neither have a chance with a more polarized Congress.
I read a column on Politico by Charles Mathesian and Tim Vandehei about the increasing polarization of Congress, which makes note of the decline of moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats in favor for both parties gravitating towards being ideological political machines. They cited an argument posed by political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal that Congress is becoming partisan as all hell (as we all know) and it's getting worse.
However, this post will not necessarily be only about the increasing partisan nature of Congress -- it will be about, however, the decline of moderate politics.
It represents a quandary for both Obama or Romney, considering that they're both attempting to move towards the center to please others on the other side of their respective political spectrum.
After running a primary campaign where he attempted to present himself as conservative as any other grand ol' Republican, Romney is starting his push towards the center as he aims to move on from a contentious primary season, fighting off former Reagan conservative heir apparent Newt Gringrich, hard-right conservative Rick Santorum, and soon-to-be fought off libertarian Ron Paul. Romney will present himself right leaning moderate to position himself better against independents, who have shown to generally vote more Democrat. (I'm guessing the Republican Party realized the need for a moderate, considering it is no secret that the GOP brass wishes for Romney to be the nominee).
Obama, on the other hand, has made a slew of Faustian deals, including somewhat appearing as a military hawk (see "no option left off the table against Iran" and drone bombings Pakistan), someone who values national security over civil liberties (NDAA, anyone?), continuing some of the most archaic conservative policies (Cuba) -- as more or less, overtures to the American right. Don't be surprised as we get closer to November, he'll start making lassiez-faire economic quips.
The chilly reception to the center-moving attempts by Obama and Romney -- for two candidates heading towards November, it's stunning how hard pressed you will be to find any sort of praise for either -- represents the increasing rejection of moderates in politics, which is surprising considering how dismayed and cynical Americans are when it comes to the dysfunction in Washington.
In my mind, it comes down two things: the new political reality of a politician trying to establish him or herself in the advent of the 24 hour media and vibrant Internet activism and the second is the dense idea amongst American voters that it is unilateral ideological success, and not cooperation and problem solving, is the way to "save the country".
This is the era of quick soundbites and trying to be as good of a political quote as possible. An era that respectful, constructive political discourse has went out the window. An epoch where scoring points with the constituency and support base is of greater importance than actually solving problems. The American thirst of a partisan political hero that undoubtedly demonstrates putting ideology ahead of cooperation, one to strong arm legislation and fulfill their ideological dream of their way of thinking being the rule of thought in Washington has absolutely disintegrated American politics.
This is why the duopoly of political parties proves to be more damning with each passing election year, but of course George Washington warned Americans of that in his farewell address. The hyperbolic and sensationalist mainstream political analysis, commentary, and reporting does not help -- the line is getting blurred between trying to gauge what Americans are thinking and trying to shape what Americans think. Don't believe me? Next time you watch CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, or even your local news cast, listen to the diction that is used by anchors and hosts when telling a story about a political issue. The words, the sentence structure -- listen to it all. You'll see what I mean.
Yet at the same time, Americans in general don't take to critical thinking when it comes to politics. If that was the case, black Americans would open their eyes to the vicious cycle of being used by the Democratic Party as political capital, that government spending has actually declined since its peak in 2009, that the biggest culprit in the ballooning of government debt is a result of an expenditure problem and revenue problem, that tax cuts is as bad at being political currency as in insisting on raising taxes on the wealthy (whom, for the record, pay a disproportionate amount in federal taxes in relation to income), and that's only the beginning. The true, sputtering machine in the United States is not the economy, it's not the "liberal media", it's not the "conservative garbage" that Rush Limbaugh, Bill Kristol, and Sean Hannity often spin out, but it is as I said before, putting the unilateral, partisan wet dream ahead of constructive and cooperative discussion, deliberation, and problem solving. The American voter, as much as the voter wants to believe that they are victims of this hypersensitive Washington, are actually the enablers.
Believe it or not, there was a time in American politics where Americans valued what the politician accomplished more so as to how much of an adherent they were to specific ideology. However, I guess McCarthy's Salem-esque communist witch hunt should have been a harbinger of what would come to fruition a half century later.
This is why moderates in politics are critical. Moderates aim to be cooperative problem solvers as they can see the points made from the left and the right and come together to accomplish something. Moderates generally approach situations with an open mind, but while they are what they are ideologically, understand that above all else, there's no success to be had unless something is accomplished. These days, when the hyper-partisan House or Senate actually comes together on the deal, it was one side making a massive concession to the other, and a bill's effectiveness is rendered moot.
However, the success of the moderate politician, the success of a kinetic, problem solving Washington depends on the American voter. Yet, you reap what you sow as an ideologically strict voter. Want an ideological hero? Vote in your ideological hero, inflate your hope and standards to an unreasonable ceiling, and be soundly disappointed when nothing gets done.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Monday, April 30, 2012
The biggest enemy of the libertarian movement
After being called a "sellout" and "Obama's straw man" in my last post by a Ron Paul supporter, I've come to realize I should probably write a post dedicated to the current Libertarian Movement. It won't be bad, but it won't be pretty either.
After the first wave of the libertarian movement more or less fizzled out by the 1970s with the decline of Barry Goldwater's political career, the second wave was brought on by Texas congressman Ron Paul, that while he served in the US House of Representatives in the late 1970s to the early 1980s representing the Houston area, it was not until his presidential run in 1988 on the Libertarian Party ticket that really established Paul as the face of the Libertarian movement in the United States.
Since then, through his somewhat controversial newsletters, his mid-1990s re-entry into national politics, and his bold predictions made in 2002 on the housing industry and American foreign policy, Paul's popularity increased and effectively exploded during the mid-2000s. With his passion for limited government, his defense for civil liberties, his down to earth personality, and what his supporters see as grandfatherly-wise-old-college-professor like wisdom, Paul is enjoying the most successful run of his political career. The 2012 election marks his third attempt at capturing the presidency, second time as a Republican, and his first time being at the forefront at a Libertarian Revolution in full swing.
He has a supporter base that is rabid and intrepid who will aggressively defend Paul and libertarian ideals against anyone and everyone. I'm not saying this about all of Paul's followers, and I won't even hypothesize on a percentage or an amount, but I guess it is enough to where it gave rise to the pejorative adjective of "Paulbots" -- a term that developed on numerous political message boards and comment boards in reaction to the responses left by Paul supporters and other libertarians.
They often characterize the biggest enemies of their movement is the mainstream media, the Republican Party establishment, the large federal government, those that ignore the Constitution, yet, they seem oblivious to the real enemy of their movement, the real enemy of the Libertarian Revolution:
Themselves.
***
Chicago School economist Milton Friedman noted that the great Austrian school economist Ludwig von Mises was someone that stood adamantly by his beliefs and conclusions and was not very open-minded. Needless to say, von Mises purportedly brash personality, at least when it came to defending his economic beliefs and theories, did not win over very many followers in economic circles, including fellow Austrian school adherent and later torch bearer Friedrich Hayek at first. This brash, and at times downright abrasive quality of some the responses that libertarians express in political discourse, no matter the medium or the form of media, will more often than not find observers who deem them repulsive instead of attractive.
This is not an indictment against libertarianism. I do have quite a bit of things to criticize about libertarianism in general, but this is not the post for it. This post is about how aggressive, elitist parts of the libertarian -- and consequently Paul -- support base will more or less hamper any large scale success that could be achieved by the most significant political movement since the neoconservatives movement of the late 1970s that culminated in Ronald Reagan's election in 1980 and ushered in the current ideological phase of the Republican Party.
Most in this movement are well-read and well-educated -- the greater the education, the greater the tendency to be liberal -- in this case classical liberal, which is what libertarianism evolves from. As a consequence, the greater the education, the greater the likelihood of someone being elitist about it. Whether you are in support of the movement or not, there is an intellectual standard to it, and while that standard can yield positive contributions in debate, there are times where these contributions can be downright condescending and disrespectful. "Sellout", "strawman", "liberty-hater", "freedom-hater" -- you name it, someone that has argued against libertarianism has been called it.
And there's the catch: if you contribute thoughtfulness to the debate and to the issues, and avoid just being strictly combative and dismissive of what you would consider to be dissident thought, then the Libertarian revolt would be taken seriously. The key to your movement should be that why libertarianism makes the most sense even with the most open mind when it comes to politics. Present it with closed-minded absolutism, then do not expect a whole ton of widespread respect. This is why Hayek had a better relationship with his peers than von Mises. While this is not true of most libertarians, it is true of enough libertarians for this to pose a significant problem.
Granted, I'm well aware this will be found in any and every political movement to exist, especially here in the United States and around the world (liberals and conservatives, and even some progressives, can prove to be condescending and repulsive). Yet, history has shown that any sociopolitical movement that once upon a time gained serious momentum, and had a supporting base that did more harm than good for the benefit of the movement because of their approach to the debate or the issues at hand (ranging from approachable and just lacking cohesion and direction to just down right despicable), it was ultimately undermined. A few examples would be Reagan neoconservatives that have increasingly began to lose influence in the Republican Party (the 2008 nominee McCain and the 2012 presumptive nominee Romney don't fall into that tradition), the Egyptian revolt, the Tea Party that crumbled last year, the Occupy Wall Street movement (though still ongoing, lost a ton of steam due to loose organization), the Dixiecrats that were torched by the progressive shift in the Democratic Party in the 1950s, the first American Civil Rights Movement (during the 19th century), and the first French Revolution.
In the end, I'll close by say this: to the libertarians out there that feel that dismissing other realms of political thought and those that follow it only because of the faces and talking points memos of such political thought instead of the core philosophical beliefs behind it and the aggressive and unflinching hero-worship of archlibertarian Ron Paul is the way to go in terms of advancing this libertarian movement, this Libertarian Revolution, then are you doomed for disappointment -- not at the hands of the mass media, not at the hands of liberals and conservatives, but at the hands of yourselves.
However, to the libertarians that believe that contribution to the debate and the issues at hand should be healthy, open-minded, and as a place where ideas can be exchanged without the insistence that entire philosophies and other viewpoints being trashed only at face value, then what you have to offer is welcome and I look forward in engaging in conversation with you.
After the first wave of the libertarian movement more or less fizzled out by the 1970s with the decline of Barry Goldwater's political career, the second wave was brought on by Texas congressman Ron Paul, that while he served in the US House of Representatives in the late 1970s to the early 1980s representing the Houston area, it was not until his presidential run in 1988 on the Libertarian Party ticket that really established Paul as the face of the Libertarian movement in the United States.
Since then, through his somewhat controversial newsletters, his mid-1990s re-entry into national politics, and his bold predictions made in 2002 on the housing industry and American foreign policy, Paul's popularity increased and effectively exploded during the mid-2000s. With his passion for limited government, his defense for civil liberties, his down to earth personality, and what his supporters see as grandfatherly-wise-old-college-professor like wisdom, Paul is enjoying the most successful run of his political career. The 2012 election marks his third attempt at capturing the presidency, second time as a Republican, and his first time being at the forefront at a Libertarian Revolution in full swing.
He has a supporter base that is rabid and intrepid who will aggressively defend Paul and libertarian ideals against anyone and everyone. I'm not saying this about all of Paul's followers, and I won't even hypothesize on a percentage or an amount, but I guess it is enough to where it gave rise to the pejorative adjective of "Paulbots" -- a term that developed on numerous political message boards and comment boards in reaction to the responses left by Paul supporters and other libertarians.
They often characterize the biggest enemies of their movement is the mainstream media, the Republican Party establishment, the large federal government, those that ignore the Constitution, yet, they seem oblivious to the real enemy of their movement, the real enemy of the Libertarian Revolution:
Themselves.
***
Chicago School economist Milton Friedman noted that the great Austrian school economist Ludwig von Mises was someone that stood adamantly by his beliefs and conclusions and was not very open-minded. Needless to say, von Mises purportedly brash personality, at least when it came to defending his economic beliefs and theories, did not win over very many followers in economic circles, including fellow Austrian school adherent and later torch bearer Friedrich Hayek at first. This brash, and at times downright abrasive quality of some the responses that libertarians express in political discourse, no matter the medium or the form of media, will more often than not find observers who deem them repulsive instead of attractive.
This is not an indictment against libertarianism. I do have quite a bit of things to criticize about libertarianism in general, but this is not the post for it. This post is about how aggressive, elitist parts of the libertarian -- and consequently Paul -- support base will more or less hamper any large scale success that could be achieved by the most significant political movement since the neoconservatives movement of the late 1970s that culminated in Ronald Reagan's election in 1980 and ushered in the current ideological phase of the Republican Party.
Most in this movement are well-read and well-educated -- the greater the education, the greater the tendency to be liberal -- in this case classical liberal, which is what libertarianism evolves from. As a consequence, the greater the education, the greater the likelihood of someone being elitist about it. Whether you are in support of the movement or not, there is an intellectual standard to it, and while that standard can yield positive contributions in debate, there are times where these contributions can be downright condescending and disrespectful. "Sellout", "strawman", "liberty-hater", "freedom-hater" -- you name it, someone that has argued against libertarianism has been called it.
And there's the catch: if you contribute thoughtfulness to the debate and to the issues, and avoid just being strictly combative and dismissive of what you would consider to be dissident thought, then the Libertarian revolt would be taken seriously. The key to your movement should be that why libertarianism makes the most sense even with the most open mind when it comes to politics. Present it with closed-minded absolutism, then do not expect a whole ton of widespread respect. This is why Hayek had a better relationship with his peers than von Mises. While this is not true of most libertarians, it is true of enough libertarians for this to pose a significant problem.
Granted, I'm well aware this will be found in any and every political movement to exist, especially here in the United States and around the world (liberals and conservatives, and even some progressives, can prove to be condescending and repulsive). Yet, history has shown that any sociopolitical movement that once upon a time gained serious momentum, and had a supporting base that did more harm than good for the benefit of the movement because of their approach to the debate or the issues at hand (ranging from approachable and just lacking cohesion and direction to just down right despicable), it was ultimately undermined. A few examples would be Reagan neoconservatives that have increasingly began to lose influence in the Republican Party (the 2008 nominee McCain and the 2012 presumptive nominee Romney don't fall into that tradition), the Egyptian revolt, the Tea Party that crumbled last year, the Occupy Wall Street movement (though still ongoing, lost a ton of steam due to loose organization), the Dixiecrats that were torched by the progressive shift in the Democratic Party in the 1950s, the first American Civil Rights Movement (during the 19th century), and the first French Revolution.
In the end, I'll close by say this: to the libertarians out there that feel that dismissing other realms of political thought and those that follow it only because of the faces and talking points memos of such political thought instead of the core philosophical beliefs behind it and the aggressive and unflinching hero-worship of archlibertarian Ron Paul is the way to go in terms of advancing this libertarian movement, this Libertarian Revolution, then are you doomed for disappointment -- not at the hands of the mass media, not at the hands of liberals and conservatives, but at the hands of yourselves.
However, to the libertarians that believe that contribution to the debate and the issues at hand should be healthy, open-minded, and as a place where ideas can be exchanged without the insistence that entire philosophies and other viewpoints being trashed only at face value, then what you have to offer is welcome and I look forward in engaging in conversation with you.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Thoughts on the Ron Paul rally
First off, I'm not a libertarian; I'm best described as a centrist, a mix of classical liberal (partially libertarian) and progressive. Nonetheless, I still attended Ron Paul's political rally on Friday night at the University of Houston. While I agree on more or less half of what he says, I found out three things by attending last night: why he appeals to the point where his supporters are rabid and would damn near defend him to the death, how he is actually similar to Barack Obama despite being on the opposite end of the political spectrum, and why I would most likely not vote for him in the general election.
Roughly 3,000 people showed up from my observational count at the Hoffeinz Pavillion. While there were some news stories on the event, the University of Houston did not promote it at all, which was surprising, considering that UH school itself made note of when former President Bill Clinton and current First Lady Michelle Obama came to UH to campaign for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, respectively. For both events, the turn out was far larger -- if you're told otherwise, its an exaggeration. Nonetheless, the 3,000 that did show up were excited, pumped, and quite vocal. They undoubtedly sounded like a crowd that was twice the size.
I also want note the diversity of the crowd as well. The University of Houston is a diverse school and despite the fact that I only expect that maybe 1500 to 2000 of those in attendance were actually current University of Houston students like myself, it wasn't an all white Tea Party event like most of Paul's detractors would think it be.
The festivities opened up with Ron Paul's oldest son, Ronnie, introducing the family to the audience, which included his mother (Ron Paul's wife), his wife, and two of his children. He then introduced a family friend from Lake Jackson, who is a tenor. He sang a beautiful rendition of America the Beautiful that got a well deserved thunderous ovation from the crowd.
Ron Paul took to the podium a little bit after 7PM after being introduced by the CEO of Youth for Ron Paul at the University of Houston. He did not really say anything new as compared to what you've already heard about him -- he discussed the path that government has taken in the past century to infringe on civil liberties and liberty in general, he railed against an aggressive and interventionist foreign policy, he attacked the welfare state and entitlement spending, and he espoused the virtues of a strict interpretation of the Constitution. On economics, it was more of the same -- criticizing the neoclassical synthesis (mainstream economics in general), the liberty promise of the free markets, the dangers of loose credit, and advocacy of the gold standard. He wrapped up a little bit before 8PM.
I finally got the grasp on Ron Paul's appeal, and while it may be complex to some, it really is not. It's one part rooted in pragmatism and another part that's rooted in a general philosophical shift: the pragmatism comes from the idea that the most practical approach to bring the United States government back to fiscal health is to "return" government to its original intended function as spelled out in the Constitution; the philosophical shift that is taking place is that the United States government does not function as the Founding Fathers envisioned instead of the United States government just not functioning properly at all. Both of those factors combined together lead towards support for a government that permits a truly free society and protects the rights, liberties, and privacy of the individual through less intrusive government and a smaller government in size -- it's what's many are yearning for and that's what they look to Ron Paul to deliver.
His speeches are similar to collegiate lectures and he has an "every man" presence. Paul wore a simple polo and blue jeans at the rally, and while every presidential candidate dresses down, the lack of a significant media presence gives credence to the fact that he's not the grandstanding, photo-op type. In other words, he is the politician that actually bucks the politician archetype; and not only people are riveted and drawn to it, it gives people comfort. If you ask anybody that is a die hard Ron Paul supporter, they may tell you that he feels like a college professor, teacher, grandfather, or uncle to them -- he brings that much comfort to his supporters.
Paul is extremely similar to Barack Obama and not because they both appeal to younger voters. Both of them unfortunately foster an unrealistic expectation amongst their supporters to be bigger than the divisive national political climate that causes paralysis and dysfunction in Washington. The high, unrealistic expectations and the subsequent let down torched Obama's popularity politically and it would undoubtedly do the same to Paul, as he would have to either make the Faustian deal to become the strong-armed President with an executive branch on steroids he that so staunchly derides or basically leave Congress to run the United States, who he would probably not work well with. The reality is this: Paul would never unilaterally be able to produce a surplus in 3 years. That's abhorrently delusional as he would never have the cooperation of what will most likely be a Democratic-controlled Congress towards the middle of his first term if he wins the general election. If the United States operated on a European parliament-style legislative structure, then I'd probably buy that.
Paul discussed how he would use Executive Orders to reverse other "bad" Executive Orders (which, for the record, actually comes from a loose interpretation of a vague grant of this power in Article I, Section 1, Clause 1 and Article II, Section 3, Clause 4) -- moves, that if proven unpopular -- would ultimately severely damage, if not destroy, the purported Libertarian Revolution. It goes back to the real underlying economic problem that economists are generally screaming about at the top of their lungs and most politicians, including Paul and Obama are ignoring -- it's not necessarily the size of government, it's not necessarily the government regulation, it's not necessarily taxes, and it's not necessarily government economic policy (even though they all play a role); it's more than anything the lack of stability and coherent direction in government. Paul and his supporters would argue then that concern would be relatively resolved by moving government out of the economic arena; this conclusion is false. This was the same conclusion reached by the supply-side economists of the 1980s and by the 1990s and 2000s outsourcing caused labor competition to increase and stymied wages -- which was actually something that Adam Smith, the king of lassiez-faire economics, actually argued in his magnum opus The Wealth of Nations. Similar to Obama, the "taking-matters-into-your-own-hands" approach may invigorate supporters, however, it may alienate independent voters who would see that as adding to Washington's unstable aura.
While I agree on Paul on quite a few things, yet not necessarily his conclusions, I came to realize I could not vote for him in the general election. While, in truth, Obama is not really that much better of a candidate (he had the chance to become the first real progressive President since Theodore Roosevelt, however, poorly played his political cards and often times proved too willing to restrict civil liberties and infringe on privacy), I learned from Obama's first term that no matter how much a candidate says that they will be bigger than the Washington political climate and get results, if that candidate gets elected and he or she cannot aptly put together an offensive against an opposing party's caricature, the candidate's support will suffer and legislative success will be stymied. Obama's issues, more than anything, result from his inability to deliver on the extremely high expectations that were set upon him in 2008.
The expectations would be the same, if not higher for Paul; if he is elected, he would be seen someone that is "America's savior". Unfortunately, Paul would exacerbate the dysfunctional Washington climate; that may excite some, but overall it is not good for business.
Intellectual differences within his own party, not to mention the differences against the Democratic Party, would undoubtedly torch a lot of the things he would aim for in terms of doing. Paul would very similar to Calvin Coolidge in his approach in governing (granted Coolidge was quieter), and while it would have been acceptable in the Jazz Age, wouldn't be vastly accepted in today's world, if at all. Democrats would support his anti-war stance and defense of civil liberties and civil rights, but would rail against his insistence on the erosion of the welfare state, the elimination some government departments, and, especially amongst black and Latino Democrats, restraint against aggressive government intervention to protect civil rights; Republicans would support his anti-tax stance and free-market stance, yet when it comes to social conservatism, strong military neoconservative nationalism, and completely dismantling government involvement in the economy, he will undoubtedly find resistance and would have a difficult time uniting a fairly fractured Republican Party.
So I'm going to sit back and just wait until a centrist -- someone that believes that government should put civil liberties and civil rights first; someone that believes in smart, proactive economic investment policy; someone that believes in justified war and not wars to extend outdated American unilateralism; and someone that believes that the welfare state does has some merit. I like Paul because he makes people think; however, Paul is not the best candidate for me, at least in terms of my personal political alignment; Huntsman was probably the closest to it of all the candidates that entered in for 2012. I don't really have a candidate that I will have unwavering support for this election, however, I wish good luck to all those involved.
Roughly 3,000 people showed up from my observational count at the Hoffeinz Pavillion. While there were some news stories on the event, the University of Houston did not promote it at all, which was surprising, considering that UH school itself made note of when former President Bill Clinton and current First Lady Michelle Obama came to UH to campaign for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, respectively. For both events, the turn out was far larger -- if you're told otherwise, its an exaggeration. Nonetheless, the 3,000 that did show up were excited, pumped, and quite vocal. They undoubtedly sounded like a crowd that was twice the size.
I also want note the diversity of the crowd as well. The University of Houston is a diverse school and despite the fact that I only expect that maybe 1500 to 2000 of those in attendance were actually current University of Houston students like myself, it wasn't an all white Tea Party event like most of Paul's detractors would think it be.
The festivities opened up with Ron Paul's oldest son, Ronnie, introducing the family to the audience, which included his mother (Ron Paul's wife), his wife, and two of his children. He then introduced a family friend from Lake Jackson, who is a tenor. He sang a beautiful rendition of America the Beautiful that got a well deserved thunderous ovation from the crowd.
Ron Paul took to the podium a little bit after 7PM after being introduced by the CEO of Youth for Ron Paul at the University of Houston. He did not really say anything new as compared to what you've already heard about him -- he discussed the path that government has taken in the past century to infringe on civil liberties and liberty in general, he railed against an aggressive and interventionist foreign policy, he attacked the welfare state and entitlement spending, and he espoused the virtues of a strict interpretation of the Constitution. On economics, it was more of the same -- criticizing the neoclassical synthesis (mainstream economics in general), the liberty promise of the free markets, the dangers of loose credit, and advocacy of the gold standard. He wrapped up a little bit before 8PM.
I finally got the grasp on Ron Paul's appeal, and while it may be complex to some, it really is not. It's one part rooted in pragmatism and another part that's rooted in a general philosophical shift: the pragmatism comes from the idea that the most practical approach to bring the United States government back to fiscal health is to "return" government to its original intended function as spelled out in the Constitution; the philosophical shift that is taking place is that the United States government does not function as the Founding Fathers envisioned instead of the United States government just not functioning properly at all. Both of those factors combined together lead towards support for a government that permits a truly free society and protects the rights, liberties, and privacy of the individual through less intrusive government and a smaller government in size -- it's what's many are yearning for and that's what they look to Ron Paul to deliver.
His speeches are similar to collegiate lectures and he has an "every man" presence. Paul wore a simple polo and blue jeans at the rally, and while every presidential candidate dresses down, the lack of a significant media presence gives credence to the fact that he's not the grandstanding, photo-op type. In other words, he is the politician that actually bucks the politician archetype; and not only people are riveted and drawn to it, it gives people comfort. If you ask anybody that is a die hard Ron Paul supporter, they may tell you that he feels like a college professor, teacher, grandfather, or uncle to them -- he brings that much comfort to his supporters.
Paul is extremely similar to Barack Obama and not because they both appeal to younger voters. Both of them unfortunately foster an unrealistic expectation amongst their supporters to be bigger than the divisive national political climate that causes paralysis and dysfunction in Washington. The high, unrealistic expectations and the subsequent let down torched Obama's popularity politically and it would undoubtedly do the same to Paul, as he would have to either make the Faustian deal to become the strong-armed President with an executive branch on steroids he that so staunchly derides or basically leave Congress to run the United States, who he would probably not work well with. The reality is this: Paul would never unilaterally be able to produce a surplus in 3 years. That's abhorrently delusional as he would never have the cooperation of what will most likely be a Democratic-controlled Congress towards the middle of his first term if he wins the general election. If the United States operated on a European parliament-style legislative structure, then I'd probably buy that.
Paul discussed how he would use Executive Orders to reverse other "bad" Executive Orders (which, for the record, actually comes from a loose interpretation of a vague grant of this power in Article I, Section 1, Clause 1 and Article II, Section 3, Clause 4) -- moves, that if proven unpopular -- would ultimately severely damage, if not destroy, the purported Libertarian Revolution. It goes back to the real underlying economic problem that economists are generally screaming about at the top of their lungs and most politicians, including Paul and Obama are ignoring -- it's not necessarily the size of government, it's not necessarily the government regulation, it's not necessarily taxes, and it's not necessarily government economic policy (even though they all play a role); it's more than anything the lack of stability and coherent direction in government. Paul and his supporters would argue then that concern would be relatively resolved by moving government out of the economic arena; this conclusion is false. This was the same conclusion reached by the supply-side economists of the 1980s and by the 1990s and 2000s outsourcing caused labor competition to increase and stymied wages -- which was actually something that Adam Smith, the king of lassiez-faire economics, actually argued in his magnum opus The Wealth of Nations. Similar to Obama, the "taking-matters-into-your-own-hands" approach may invigorate supporters, however, it may alienate independent voters who would see that as adding to Washington's unstable aura.
While I agree on Paul on quite a few things, yet not necessarily his conclusions, I came to realize I could not vote for him in the general election. While, in truth, Obama is not really that much better of a candidate (he had the chance to become the first real progressive President since Theodore Roosevelt, however, poorly played his political cards and often times proved too willing to restrict civil liberties and infringe on privacy), I learned from Obama's first term that no matter how much a candidate says that they will be bigger than the Washington political climate and get results, if that candidate gets elected and he or she cannot aptly put together an offensive against an opposing party's caricature, the candidate's support will suffer and legislative success will be stymied. Obama's issues, more than anything, result from his inability to deliver on the extremely high expectations that were set upon him in 2008.
The expectations would be the same, if not higher for Paul; if he is elected, he would be seen someone that is "America's savior". Unfortunately, Paul would exacerbate the dysfunctional Washington climate; that may excite some, but overall it is not good for business.
Intellectual differences within his own party, not to mention the differences against the Democratic Party, would undoubtedly torch a lot of the things he would aim for in terms of doing. Paul would very similar to Calvin Coolidge in his approach in governing (granted Coolidge was quieter), and while it would have been acceptable in the Jazz Age, wouldn't be vastly accepted in today's world, if at all. Democrats would support his anti-war stance and defense of civil liberties and civil rights, but would rail against his insistence on the erosion of the welfare state, the elimination some government departments, and, especially amongst black and Latino Democrats, restraint against aggressive government intervention to protect civil rights; Republicans would support his anti-tax stance and free-market stance, yet when it comes to social conservatism, strong military neoconservative nationalism, and completely dismantling government involvement in the economy, he will undoubtedly find resistance and would have a difficult time uniting a fairly fractured Republican Party.
So I'm going to sit back and just wait until a centrist -- someone that believes that government should put civil liberties and civil rights first; someone that believes in smart, proactive economic investment policy; someone that believes in justified war and not wars to extend outdated American unilateralism; and someone that believes that the welfare state does has some merit. I like Paul because he makes people think; however, Paul is not the best candidate for me, at least in terms of my personal political alignment; Huntsman was probably the closest to it of all the candidates that entered in for 2012. I don't really have a candidate that I will have unwavering support for this election, however, I wish good luck to all those involved.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Freakolitics, Part I
This series may or may not continue, but I figure I would write this to prove somewhat of a point.
This was a network that was, in a way, libertarian in nature. It had a very decentralized arrangement; you as the audience had the power to do whatever you wanted, and you more or less did whatever you pleased so as long as you were not ruining the experiences for others in the audience. More or less, the decentralized network administration depended on numerous constituent players playing fair. Unfortunately, the reality of this happening broke down, this setup wreaked of instability, and, finally, caused a massive revolt and subsequent drain in the audience.
This other network was organized like a strong federal government. It was a highly centralized tight setup, where this network's administrators made changes whenever they wanted, at many times to the chagrin of the audience. However, because this network more or less perfected the model of extending and enhancing your personal life structure instead of trying to enhancement through expansion (which was the model of the aforementioned network), the administrators knew they had an arrangement that was too good to be disrupted by audience disgust. It managed to become the most powerful network on earth.
I should mentioned that now the first network I mentioned actually took on the second network's approach of a much more centralized arrangement and it managed to slowly start regenerating audience growth.
What are these networks, you ask?
The former network I mentioned is Myspace; the latter network is Facebook.
This was a network that was, in a way, libertarian in nature. It had a very decentralized arrangement; you as the audience had the power to do whatever you wanted, and you more or less did whatever you pleased so as long as you were not ruining the experiences for others in the audience. More or less, the decentralized network administration depended on numerous constituent players playing fair. Unfortunately, the reality of this happening broke down, this setup wreaked of instability, and, finally, caused a massive revolt and subsequent drain in the audience.
This other network was organized like a strong federal government. It was a highly centralized tight setup, where this network's administrators made changes whenever they wanted, at many times to the chagrin of the audience. However, because this network more or less perfected the model of extending and enhancing your personal life structure instead of trying to enhancement through expansion (which was the model of the aforementioned network), the administrators knew they had an arrangement that was too good to be disrupted by audience disgust. It managed to become the most powerful network on earth.
I should mentioned that now the first network I mentioned actually took on the second network's approach of a much more centralized arrangement and it managed to slowly start regenerating audience growth.
What are these networks, you ask?
The former network I mentioned is Myspace; the latter network is Facebook.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
We're all Transcendentalists now
I think we're all Transcendentalists now.
Seriously.
Well, at least we like to think that we are.
For those that are unfamiliar with Transcendentalism, it was the New England movement of the 1830s and 1840s that preached self reliance, independence, and the inherent goodness of man and nature. It railed against political parties and organized religion as toxins to the individual; it was a movement that was a general protest against the state of culture that persisted in the early United States (or, as noted in the Wikipedia entry on Transcendentalism, a retort against the intellectual state and the clergy at Harvard University).
Transcendentalists included some of the most celebrated literary, philosophical, and educational figures in the history of the United States, such as writers, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Walt Whitman, William Ellery Channing, and Henry David Thoreau, women's rights advocate Margaret Fuller, education pioneer Elizabeth Palmer Peabody, amongst others. It was notable for the Utopian experiment of Brook Farm, and 1840s communal living community that was founded by George Ripley (not the one that would be later be associated with Ripley's Believe or Not) near present day Boston. The community didn't pan out due to agricultural issues and most of it is now a cemetery in west Boston. Take what you want from that -- where "utopia" fell victim to reality or take it as an indictment against social liberalism, it's still indeed relevant.
The United States was founded, more or less, on the idea of "utopia" or at least some concept of perpetual great promise and paradise. English Pilgrims and Quakers searched for religious tolerance, the Spanish feigned for a golden paradise, the Dutch wanted a paradise for fur trading -- so did the French. All an utopia is, more or less, is a place of paradise where something of great promise would be perpetually provided, whether it would be freedom, gold, or, yes, fur.
So what does all of this have to do with saying that Americans are all attempting to be Transcendentalists now?
If you pay attention to a lot of the political discourse in the United states, whether it would be through the forums of the Internet or the soundbites of the political arena in a 24/7 news cycle world, the search for that utopia has never went away:
Conservatives are always looking forward to that day where unilateral American supremacy, family values, a more theological sound government, supply-side economics, lower taxes, and the substantial elimination of the welfare state will exist.
Liberals are still looking for when rights for any all demographics will be secured, where nobody is poor, and where government would finally be the hero that so many have been clamoring for the government to be.
Libertarians are still pushing for a Jeffersonian America, with extremely limited government, a non-interventionist foreign policy, protection of civil rights and liberties thanks to a limited government, a specie standard, and a free-market, lassiez-faire paradise.
Progressives are still looking for that one perfect system that would make everyone happy, where government and society will always be proactive instead of just reactive.
While in the media conservatives are paired with libertarians and liberals are often paired with progressives, they're four different ideologies pushing for four different things. Beyond that, though, it's a representation of that endless search and aim for their American utopia where their philosophy would hold dominion over this elusive American utopia.
These days, it's not the small, out-post utopian communities being formed -- its the political party platforms, the political action committees, and the think tanks that have taken on that role. The books are still there, the essays have been replaced by blogging, but we would be hard pressed to induct the likes of Ron Paul, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Tavis Smiley, Kirsten Powers, Alan Colmes, amongst others into the pantheon of storied American authors who managed to shape American literary identity in the vein of Emerson, Thoreau, and Whitman.
The funniest theme, however, of the presidential race is that all of the candidates, in some form or another, are promising to "restore prosperity to the Untied States", even though few bring up the reality that a major catalyst to the "not-as-robust-as-we-would-like" American economy is due to a shift from the blue collar engine to the white collar engine, spearheaded by the American system that preaches efficiency that pushes companies to do more with less resources, rather than the education and training of new workers. The funny part is, the "America" that they're trying to restore is only just the America that fits their utopian vision, not the America that actually existed, because there are far greater realities to the history of the United States than just "freedom", "liberty", "justice", and "prosperity" -- all of which, that thanks to certain points and times in the history of the United States -- can be attached for being hypocritical and ignoring of greater realities.
So we're going to keep on this romantic pursuit. Why?
Because we're all becoming Transcendentalists. At least, we like to think that we are.
Seriously.
Well, at least we like to think that we are.
For those that are unfamiliar with Transcendentalism, it was the New England movement of the 1830s and 1840s that preached self reliance, independence, and the inherent goodness of man and nature. It railed against political parties and organized religion as toxins to the individual; it was a movement that was a general protest against the state of culture that persisted in the early United States (or, as noted in the Wikipedia entry on Transcendentalism, a retort against the intellectual state and the clergy at Harvard University).
Transcendentalists included some of the most celebrated literary, philosophical, and educational figures in the history of the United States, such as writers, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Walt Whitman, William Ellery Channing, and Henry David Thoreau, women's rights advocate Margaret Fuller, education pioneer Elizabeth Palmer Peabody, amongst others. It was notable for the Utopian experiment of Brook Farm, and 1840s communal living community that was founded by George Ripley (not the one that would be later be associated with Ripley's Believe or Not) near present day Boston. The community didn't pan out due to agricultural issues and most of it is now a cemetery in west Boston. Take what you want from that -- where "utopia" fell victim to reality or take it as an indictment against social liberalism, it's still indeed relevant.
The United States was founded, more or less, on the idea of "utopia" or at least some concept of perpetual great promise and paradise. English Pilgrims and Quakers searched for religious tolerance, the Spanish feigned for a golden paradise, the Dutch wanted a paradise for fur trading -- so did the French. All an utopia is, more or less, is a place of paradise where something of great promise would be perpetually provided, whether it would be freedom, gold, or, yes, fur.
So what does all of this have to do with saying that Americans are all attempting to be Transcendentalists now?
If you pay attention to a lot of the political discourse in the United states, whether it would be through the forums of the Internet or the soundbites of the political arena in a 24/7 news cycle world, the search for that utopia has never went away:
Conservatives are always looking forward to that day where unilateral American supremacy, family values, a more theological sound government, supply-side economics, lower taxes, and the substantial elimination of the welfare state will exist.
Liberals are still looking for when rights for any all demographics will be secured, where nobody is poor, and where government would finally be the hero that so many have been clamoring for the government to be.
Libertarians are still pushing for a Jeffersonian America, with extremely limited government, a non-interventionist foreign policy, protection of civil rights and liberties thanks to a limited government, a specie standard, and a free-market, lassiez-faire paradise.
Progressives are still looking for that one perfect system that would make everyone happy, where government and society will always be proactive instead of just reactive.
While in the media conservatives are paired with libertarians and liberals are often paired with progressives, they're four different ideologies pushing for four different things. Beyond that, though, it's a representation of that endless search and aim for their American utopia where their philosophy would hold dominion over this elusive American utopia.
These days, it's not the small, out-post utopian communities being formed -- its the political party platforms, the political action committees, and the think tanks that have taken on that role. The books are still there, the essays have been replaced by blogging, but we would be hard pressed to induct the likes of Ron Paul, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Tavis Smiley, Kirsten Powers, Alan Colmes, amongst others into the pantheon of storied American authors who managed to shape American literary identity in the vein of Emerson, Thoreau, and Whitman.
The funniest theme, however, of the presidential race is that all of the candidates, in some form or another, are promising to "restore prosperity to the Untied States", even though few bring up the reality that a major catalyst to the "not-as-robust-as-we-would-like" American economy is due to a shift from the blue collar engine to the white collar engine, spearheaded by the American system that preaches efficiency that pushes companies to do more with less resources, rather than the education and training of new workers. The funny part is, the "America" that they're trying to restore is only just the America that fits their utopian vision, not the America that actually existed, because there are far greater realities to the history of the United States than just "freedom", "liberty", "justice", and "prosperity" -- all of which, that thanks to certain points and times in the history of the United States -- can be attached for being hypocritical and ignoring of greater realities.
So we're going to keep on this romantic pursuit. Why?
Because we're all becoming Transcendentalists. At least, we like to think that we are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)