What Does "Ungovernable" Really Mean?

As the Obama agenda crashes up against the rocks of the last tattered vestiges of the American sense of life, the left is frantically scrambling to point figures and lay blame. As usual, the "party of the people" shows its ultimate scorn for "the people," as aptly summarized today by Peter Wehner in the WSJ. He writes of three ways the left is now characterizing the American people and the ways in which they are "ungovernable":

1. According to Joe Klein of Time, "the American people are too stupid to govern. . . .Klein, who, in criticizing public opposition to the president's stimulus package on Jan. 25, referred to us as a "nation of dodos."
   
2. The Republicans are obstructionist just for the sake of it, bordering on nihilistic (hello pot? It's the kettle. You're black.) "Newsweek's Michael Cohen summed up this view when he wrote, 'Perhaps the greatest hindrance to good governance today is the Republican Party, which has adopted an agenda of pure nihilism for naked political gain.'"
3. The filibuster is broken. "The third iteration of the America-is-ungovernable view is represented by the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who calls the Senate 'ominously dysfunctional' and insists that the way it works is 'no longer consistent with a functioning government.'"

The playground bully has encountered some unforeseen opposition, and now is furiously petulant that his plans for domination are being thwarted. What the left is upset about is not that Americans are ungovernable or that the separation of powers makes it impossible to govern. The left is incensed that the American people seem unruleable.

Note the difference. The left desires an active governance by which their will is imposed regardless of the rights or wishes of the people. They want to rule. When they don't get their way, their true colors come out as they call names, ridicule, bully, pout, whine, and generally make fools of themselves. And while the target of their bile is most often the Republican establishment, that isn't what is making them so furious. They are so flabbergasted that a few crazy "teabaggers" could wield so much influence that they are becoming unhinged.

Wehner posits that Obama's troubles show both a failure of the left, and the strength of the right. He thinks that the right actually has something constructive to offer, and that the issue is that Obama is simply a weak president and is too liberal.

The trouble is, both sides are wrong in all of this. As I mentioned at the start, it is the American sense of life, as tired and worn as it is, that is standing in the way of the left, and very few truly understand why that is, including the Tea Partiers. And this is a crucial, and very unfortunate point.

Despite the American sense of life, that visceral respect for freedom and individual rights and a mistrust of government, the past 100 years have shown that we are all too willing to be not only governed, but also ruled. Majorities of voters routinely clamor for more programs, more handouts, more regulations. We docilely accept outrage after outrage as if it's the proper way of things. The left had a reasonable expectation that we would accept their rule, or at the very least show so little opposition that it wouldn't matter. Perhaps that is part of the reason they are so flummoxed now.

Whatever the causes of the current flare up in pro-individualism and anti-government sentiment -- and there are many -- it is just a sentiment for most, without fundamental principles to ground it. People sense "something" is wrong, but they can only look to received wisdom -- the Bible, the Constitution, etc. -- and say "see? We're moving away from our roots!" The minute a populist Republican starts placating them, they'll go back to being eminently governable.

The best this situation can do right now is buy us more time. The longer the government is in gridlock, the better chance we have to promote reason, egoism, laissez-faire capitalism, objective law, individual rights, and all the other ideas that will bring this society back from the brink of what John Edwards really meant by his "Two Americas" shtick: the rulers and the ruled.

Case Study: The Failure of a Conservative's Defense of Rights

A columnist at The American Thinker argued against the idea that health care is a right, and even attempted a definition of rights. That in itself, in a conservative forum, deserves notice. The author, Rich Hrebic, was then interviewed on the Rush Limbaugh radio show, and Rush applauded him for his definition of rights.

So what did he say?

Isn't the point of the Democrats' push to reform the health care system based on establishing health care as a right? That's what the politicians say of course. But in reality the result will be the exact opposite.

Part of the problem is that most Americans don't understand what a right is. A right is not a guarantee that the government (i.e., other people) will provide you something for free. ...

What makes something a right is not whether the government can force somebody else to pay for it. What defines something as a right is whether the government can or cannot prohibit you from doing it. ... If the government can't stop you from doing it, then it's a right. [emphasis in orig.]

Unfortunately, this simply doesn't cut it. The general thrust is good--health care is not a right--but the defense of individual rights is severely lacking. I and Ed Cline replied, and my first comment follows his; my #19 to his #18. Mine says:

Posted by: C. August
Jul 22, 11:33 AM

I applaud you for raising the question of "what is a right?" but your definition is not a satisfactory defense, certainly not in the face of ever-increasing violations of individual rights.

You said, "If the government can't stop you from doing it, then it's a right." But what is this based on? _Why_ can't the government stop you from doing certain things? I presume this refers to constitutionally guaranteed rights and/or laws on the books, but what happens when an amendment is passed that specifically violates individual rights, stopping you from doing something which you have a natural right to do? How would you fight that with your concept of rights?

Rather than being granted by the government or springing from society, individual rights are based on the nature of man as a rational, volitional being who must think and act to further his life, and who has sole claim to the product of those efforts. The fundamental individual rights from which all others are derived are the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. The only proper role of government is the protection of those rights. (It should be quite obvious that the country has moved a long way from that proper role.)

As Ayn Rand wrote [aynrandlexicon.com]:

"The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness means man’s right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own private, personal, individual happiness and to work for its achievement, so long as he respects the same right in others. It means that Man cannot be forced to devote his life to the happiness of another man nor of any number of other men. It means that the collective cannot decide what is to be the purpose of a man’s existence nor prescribe his choice of happiness."

And in the _Virtue of Selfishness_ she wrote:

"[A man's right to his own life] is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave."

This is the formulation of the concept of individual rights that is needed to defend against the erosion of our liberties. Simply referring to what the government can't prevent you from doing opens the door for it to pass more laws that further restrict individual freedom.

To Ed's comment and mine, the author, Rich Hrebic, responded:

Posted by: Rich Hrebic
Jul 22, 04:34 PM

Thanks to all for their thoughtful comments.

In response to Kelly, Cline and August:

I happen to agree with the Objectivist definition of rights, but that is not the only accepted definition. A right can be defined in terms of a just moral claim, as Rand did. But it can also be understood as a just legal claim.

I chose to argue my point based on the legal rather than the moral context for several reasons. In my short essay I wanted to persuade people who were sitting on the fence. These people are typically unfamiliar with Objectivsm or Natural Law theory. And I didn't want to get into defending Rand's (or anyone else's) moral principles as that would divert me from my main point.

Arguing based on the legal formulation of rights has the advantage that I don't have to defend what we can legally do or not do. Those are questions of fact, not of opinion.

Furthermore in common parlance most people understand what winning or losing a right means in practical terms. For example women "won" the right to vote when the 19th Amendment was ratified. Everyone understands what that means.

However winning or losing a right in the Randian sense is meaningless. A right in this context is a just moral claim and still exists as such whether the government respects it or not. An African slave in the antebellum South would still have had the right to be free in the Randian (moral) sense, but clearly not in the legal sense.

Again I am in agreement with the Objectivist definition of rights. However as a tactical choice I felt that the legal definition could make my point more concisely and convince a broader group of people.

The main point of my article is that, contrary to what its proponents claim, universal health care is not a protection of our rights but rather an infringement of them.

Thanks again for reading.

- Rich

There was likely only minimal value in addressing the rationalistic arguments as presented, but as I had some free time, I decided that on the off chance that some active minds happened upon the discussion, I wanted to at least have an answer posted, no matter what other comments were added later.

This was my response:

Posted by: C. August
Jul 22, 06:44 PM

Rich, thanks for your thoughtful reply. I'd like to briefly address just a couple of your points.

You said you chose to make your argument "based on the legal formulation of rights" because it served your purposes better, and that any questions about this "are questions of fact, not of opinion." I fully understand the need to speak to your particular audience, and to tailor an argument appropriately; that is an admirable tactic. But, if I understand what you mean here, you are looking to the law of the land--the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and all legal precedent--as the "fact[s]" instead of referencing the fundamental nature of individual rights.

The problem with this line of thought is that, as anyone familiar with the Kelo decision could point out, the decisions of the various branches of government that comprise the law of the land can be quite arbitrary, and ultimately result in a horribly unjust action and violation of man's most basic rights. This is what I meant when I asked in my earlier comment, "what happens when an amendment is passed that specifically violates individual rights, stopping you from doing something which you have a natural right to do? How would you fight that with your concept of rights?"

Furthermore, "winning or losing a right in the Randian sense" is most definitely _not_ meaningless. Winning the *recognition* of a right from the government is a profound victory, and one that is as "practical" as you assert is "winning the right" itself. Plus, it has the benefit of reinforcing the idea that rights are _ours_, inalienably, and winning one just means getting the behemoth government to begrudgingly recognize it.

Moving on: "However as a tactical choice I felt that the legal definition could make my point more concisely and convince a broader group of people. "

Again, I appreciate the need to speak to your specific audience, but the problem with an argument from non-essentials like the "legal definition of rights" is that it doesn't give your new "broader group of people" the tools to understand _why_ healthcare is not a right, and why, to say it is a right, means that those who provide it are essentially slaves to the healthcare needs of others.

Instead, it just says "they say it is a right, and I say it isn't, but you should believe *me* because I'm pointing to laws." This does a disservice to those out there looking for substantial answers, and ultimately sabotages your goals of defending individual rights--which I assume is your ultimate goal (an admirable one, by the way).

A modification of an old saying is apropos here: "You can lead a man to knowledge but you can't make him think." Giving men a baseless answer without the proper grounding in political philosophy may suggest that there might be an answer somewhere, but it won't ultimately help them reach it.

Soon after this, a number of other commenters chimed in, ignoring the fundamental arguments that preceded them, arguing around the same non-defense of rights. No surprise there. But for anyone paying attention, with an active mind, they should notice which arguments pushed Hrebic to respond ("methinks he protesteth too much"). Such people might draw the conclusion that Hrebic implicitly conceded that the Objectivist position is the only right one, and he simply chose to make a compromise in the mistaken interest of practicality.

---------
UPDATE: added closing comments and minor edits - 7/23/09

Saxby v. Sunstein - He musta looked 'im in the eye

At the end of June, I posted a brief note about Senator Saxby Chambliss holding up the nomination of Cass Sunstein because Sunstein has advocated for animal rights and the outlandish idea that humans should be able to bring suit on behalf of animals, as well as against the right to bear arms.

I didn't hold out much hope for the block, however, because it was completely devoid of principle. I trust you're not surprised. As I said in that earlier post:

While I applaud Chambliss for blocking the nomination -- at least for now, because he said he wants to talk to him before lifting his blockade, as "He has not had the opportunity to look me in the eye," whatever good that will do -- because he has not done so in any principled fashion ... Chambliss' stand will very likely end in compromise (i.e. failure).

Such is the inevitable outcome of Republicans' inability to understand or stand for individual rights. Unless and until they do, they will continue to fail.

This was not a tough prediction to make. My only surprise is that it has taken over two weeks for Chambliss to compromise and fail (from CongressDaily):

Senate Agriculture ranking member Saxby Chambliss announced Wednesday that he is lifting a hold he placed on the nomination of Harvard Law School professor Cass Sunstein, President Obama's pick to head OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

"I am not gonna keep him from confirmation and I intend to lift my hold," Chambliss said on the Senate floor.

Saxby and Cass had a nice sit down, apparently, which gave Cass the chance to "look him in the eye." Perhaps they even had a nice laugh, talked about the weather, and discussed their favorite sports teams. Oh, and Sunstein also wrote a letter disavowing all of his radical positions on the key issues that Chambliss and his pull peddlers lobbyists were concerned about. From the same CongressDaily piece:

[Chambliss] cited a letter from Sunstein pledging not to "take any steps to promote litigation on behalf of animals" and agreeing the law does not give animals such rights. Sunstein in the letter also says he believes the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms.

This reminds me of the Sonia Sotomayor hearings, and Myrhaf's comments about them. You should read the whole thing, but these snippets are particularly apt:

It’s remarkable to hear Sonia Sotomayor walk away from every postmodern/multiculturalist statement she has made....

It’s pretty obvious to critics from across the spectrum that she is lying. Like the President who nominated her, she will tell any lie in the quest for power. This seems to be SOP for the New Left, and is most troubling. Those capable of destroying the truth are capable of any enormity.

It’s fascinating to me how little integrity radical subjectivists have. If I were sitting before a hearing and I firmly believed a legal philosophy, there is no way I could disavow what I believe to win a nomination. ... But my beliefs are grounded in reality. I hold that there are absolutes, that A is A, and that reason can identify reality. Sotomayor, as a postmodern subjectivist, believes none of this.

Simply replace Sotomayor's name with Sunstein's, and it applies just as well. In fact, I'd guess that nearly every Obama nominee going through confirmation hearings uses the same playbook. What we then witness is the battle between the spineless, soulless, mindless conservatives, and the power-lusting, subjectivist, postmodern, "intellectual" leftists, with the ultimate result of compromise, glad-handing, meaningless theatrics, and the inevitable erosion of our liberties.

Ayn Rand's hero, John Galt, said in Atlas Shrugged that "in any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win." What happens when the compromise is between a little poison and a lot?

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

UPDATE: 7/17/09 @2:00pm

A blog at the Atlanta Journal Constitution has the following juicy quote from Chambliss that is too telling, too fascinatingly horrific, to pass up:

Chambliss introduced Sunstein to several agbusiness groups. “Most of those folks have become satisfied that he didn’t really mean what he said,” Chambliss recounted, and that — if he did — the law professor did not intend to pursue his aims. [bold added]

Are you comforted? Sunstein said all of those things, many times, in many books, articles, and speeches, over the course of nearly two decades, but he didn't really mean any of them. This is just like he didn't really mean that we should have an Internet fairness doctrine, or that the Internet is a serious foe of democracy.

If there is anything else that makes you uncomfortable about Sunstein's positions, just have your Senator ask about it, and I'm sure Sunstein will confirm that he no longer thinks what you thought he thought, or that you misunderstood him, and he never thought that in the first place.

Our Generation's Smoot-Hawley

I'm shocked to find a speech by a Republican with which I can find nothing to disagree. In fact, this speech given on the House floor last Friday by California Rep. Tom McClintock, after the passage of the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade bill, is insightful, well constructed, and makes a comparison to the history of the Great Depression I hadn't heard before.

McClintock first discusses California's climate change legislation of 2007 and how it drastically deepened the state's financial woes, and then compares cap-and-trade to the disastrous Smoot-Hawley Tariff that sent the country into the Great Depression. It also doesn't hurt that he casually rips apart the claims of global warming alarmists used as a reason to support the bill. This is a very good speech, especially so in comparison to the dumbed-down discourse of our modern politicians.

Tom McClintock, June 26, 2009 8:31 PM - US House of Representatives:

I had a strange sense of Deja Vu as I watched the self-congratulatory rhetoric on the house floor tonight, and I feel compelled to offer this warning from the Left Coast.

Three years ago, I stood on the floor of the California Senate and watched a similar celebration over a similar bill, AB 32. And I have spend the last three years watching as that law has dangerously deepened California’s recession. It uses a different mechanism than Cap and Trade, but the objective is the same: to force a dramatic reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

Up until that bill took effect, California’s unemployment numbers tracked very closely with the national unemployment rate. But then in January of 2007, California’s unemployment rate began a steady upward divergence from the national jobless figures. Today, California’s unemployment rate is more than two points above the national rate, and at its highest point since 1941.

What is it that happened in January of 2007? AB 32 took effect and began shutting down entire segments of California’s economy. Let me give you one example from my district. The City of Truckee, California was about to sign a long-term power contract to get its electricity from a new, EPA-approved coal-fired electricity plant in Utah. AB 32 and companion legislation caused them to abandon that contract. The replacement power they acquired literally doubled their electricity costs.

So when economists warn that we can expect electricity prices to double under the cap and trade bill, I can tell you from bitter experience that in my district, that’s not a future prediction, that is an historical fact.

Gov. Schwarzenegger assured us that AB 32 would mean an explosion of new, green jobs -- exactly the same promises we’re hearing from cap and trade supporters. In California, exactly the opposite has happened. We have lost so many jobs that the UCSB economic forecast is now using the D-word – Depression – to discuss California’s job market.

M. Speaker, the Cap and Trade bill proposes what amounts to endlessly increasing taxes on any enterprises that produce carbon dioxide or other so-called greenhouse gas emissions. We need to understand what that means. It has profound implications for agriculture, construction, cargo and passenger transportation, energy production, baking and brewing – all of which produce enormous quantities this innocuous and ubiquitous compound. In fact, every human being produces 2.2 pounds of carbon dioxide every day – just by breathing.

So applying a tax to the economy designed to radically constrict carbon dioxide emissions means radically constricting the economy.

And this brings us to the fine point of it.

When you discuss the folly of the Hoover Administration – how it turned the recession of 1929 into the depression of the 1930’s, the first thing that economists point to is the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that imposed new taxes on over 20,000 imported products.

Waxman-Markey is our generation’s Smoot-Hawley. In fact, it’s worse because it imposes new taxes on an infinitely larger number of domestic products on a scale that utterly dwarfs Smoot-Hawley.

Let’s ignore for the moment the fact that the planet’s climate is constantly changing and that long term global warming has been going on since the last ice age.

Let’s ignore the fact that within recorded history we know of periods when the earth’s climate has been much warmer than it is today and others when it has been much cooler.

Let’s ignore the thousands of climate scientists and meteorologists who have concluded that human-produced greenhouse gases are a negligible factor in global warming or climate change.

Ignore all of that and still we are left with one lousy sense of timing. In the most serious recession since the Great Depression – why would members of this house want to repeat the same mistakes that produced that Great Depression? Watching how California has just wrecked its economy and destroyed its finances, why would they want to do the same thing to our nation?

M. Speaker, this is deadly serious stuff. It transcends ideology and politics. This House has just made the biggest economic mistake since the days of Herbert Hoover.

If this measure becomes law, two things are certain. First, our planet will continue to warm and cool as it has been doing for billions of years. Second, Congress will have delivered a staggering blow to our nation’s economy at precisely that moment when that economy was the most vulnerable.

You can watch the speech here, and see transcripts of his other speeches here.

[HT: IBD]

Huh?

I just read "Man and His Self-Interest" by Froma Harrop on RealClearPolitics.

All I'm left with is.... what. the. hell. is. this? I read it twice... some sections three times... and I have no idea what she is saying. I think she has NO idea what the concept of self-interest is, and thus any discussion in favor or against it ends up completely muddled.

She tries to discuss the primary challenge to Pennsylvania Senator, Arlen Specter, and says

Specter would have probably lost that primary, since many of the Republican moderates who formed his support have left the party. Thus, he has declared himself a Democrat, a convenient label for the general election.

Specter is not unacquainted with self-interest. He's pretty strong on self-regard, as well.

But when Specter's jockeying for advantageous position threatened Toomey's happiness, Republican right-wingers predictably portrayed the senator's self-interest as selfishness. Betrayal is another word that comes up. [bold added]

I usually bold parts of quotations to highlight particularly cogent arguments. Here, I bold things that MAKE NO SENSE. I have NO idea what the hell this writer is trying to say.

Her horrible article just gets worse and worse as it goes along. In the end, I believe she is trying to say that Republicans like Toomey shouldn't be so harsh in pushing a fiscal conservative agenda, because it's hurting the feelings of people like Specter and forcing them out of the party. I don't know enough about Harrop to guess why she cares. I read the article solely because of the headline, and ended up reeling from the barrage of shallow, nonsensical arguments and the gossipy, sniping tone.

Pragmatism, Social Justice, and the Failure of Conservatism

In an upcoming May edition of The Weekly Standard, Peter Berkowitz discusses the nature of pragmatism as practised by Barack Obama and his administration. Berkowitz does a good job of describing how Obama operates, and relates it to the pervasive pragmatism that has infected academics and law, among other fields.

He correctly defines the anti-philosophical nature of pragmatism, and then explains how people like Richard Rorty brought the ideas into the academic mainstream and tweaked them to push a leftist agenda.

At its most extreme, philosophical pragmatism denies the very existence of objective truth, arguing that opinions we declare true are merely those that have proved useful to one interest or another.

In the 1980s and 1990s, philosophy professor Richard Rorty... infused pragmatism with a decidedly partisan meaning. Or perhaps, as Rorty suggested, he brought out the original pragmatism's latent partisanship. His synthesis proved popular in philosophy departments, among political theorists, and in law schools. While Obama may never have read a word Rorty wrote, the new pragmatism permeated the atmosphere of the university world Obama inhabited. It proclaimed that philosophical questions were subordinate to political questions, and that the proper political question in America is how to promote progressive ends. [bold added]

Berkowitz then discusses the nature of the "new pragmatism" and how well it describes Obama's actions.

To realize its utopian dreams, the new pragmatism makes use of a fundamental deception. Purporting to focus on practical consequences, it equates what works with what works to increase government's responsibility to promote social justice in America. Although it reduces morality to interest and dismisses the distinction between true and false as a delusive vestige of an obsolete metaphysics, it treats the progressive interpretation of America as, in effect, good and true. Under the guise of inclusiveness, it denigrates and excludes rival moral and political opinions.

So too it seems for Obama's pragmatism: It appears to be another name for achieving progressive ends; flexibility is confined to the means. ... Judging by his conduct--as pragmatism officially instructs--Obama appears to have concluded that the best way to maintain public support for progressive programs is to divert attention from the full range of their consequences and, where possible, to refrain from making progressive principles too explicit. [bold added]

This is spot on concerning the diversionary tactics employed to misdirect public attention away from the real causes and effects of the administration's actions. It's like institutionalized evasion. But what I found especially interesting was the Rortian concept of employing pragmatism to systematically promote leftist goals. "Purporting to focus on practical consequences, it equates what works with what works to increase government's responsibility to promote social justice in America." That is a powerful identification, and should be remembered every time anyone in government or the media speaks glowing of Obama's pragmatism.

When a reporter on NPR speaks of foreign policy shifts and praises them for their pragmatic nature, recall that Obama's pragmatism has a distinct nature designed to foster a social justice agenda. Instead of just "finding something that works," his administration's pragmatism is focused on finding what works to promote progressive goals, using a method laid out by philosophers like Rorty.

This, of course, follows the progression of pragmatism from the original meaning of dispensing with standards and principles and just doing what works, to what Ayn Rand termed "Kantian Pragmatism."

A later school of more Kantian Pragmatists amended this philosophy as follows. If there is no such thing as an objective reality, men’s metaphysical choice is whether the selfish, dictatorial whims of an individual or the democratic whims of a collective are to shape that plastic goo which the ignorant call “reality,” therefore this school decided that objectivity consists of collective subjectivism—that knowledge is to be gained by means of public polls among special elites of “competent investigators” who can “predict and control” reality—that whatever people wish to be true, is true, whatever people wish to exist, does exist, and anyone who holds any firm convictions of his own is an arbitrary, mystic dogmatist, since reality is indeterminate and people determine its actual nature. - "For the New Intellectual" via ARL.

Our current administration, and the leftist academics they sprang from, see themselves as the "special elites... who can 'predict and control' reality," and are applying these techniques to the political realm to control our freedoms, using evasive and "soft" nudges.

Despite the insightful commentary about the nature of this "new" pragmatism, there are some real problems with Berkowitz's article. There is a decidedly Christian conservative bent to it, for one thing. For instance, Berkowitz uses as an example of the negative effects of Obama's pragmatism, the lifting of the ban on embryonic stem cell research on the grounds of Christian morality.

But the biggest problem with Berkowitz is that he never condemns pragmatism directly, but only the Rorty-inspired new pragmatism that pushes social justice. He mistakenly claims that "A truly postpartisan pragmatist--or a pragmatist in the ordinary, everyday sense--would pay attention to the long-term economic consequences of massive government costs and expansion." On what basis would a pragmatist judge long-term consequences? One needs reason and principle to do such a thing, and Berkowitz has already conceded that pragmatism purposefully tosses those out the window. Perhaps he should go back and read the first half of his piece, and decide if it squares with his conclusions.

In a classic conservative move, Berkowitz undercuts the force of his original argument by pandering to the philosophical base of the Left. And despite the fact that he had correctly identified the anti-philosophical qualities of pragmatism earlier, he shows that he seriously misunderstands its true destructive nature.

The problem is not partisanship, but a deceptive form of pragmatism, where pretending to be nonpartisan is a pragmatic strategy for imposing far-reaching progressive policies on an unwary public. This pragmatism is unpragmatic because it suppresses inconvenient consequences, and disrespectful of citizens because it obscures its governing principles and ultimate intentions. [all emphasis added]

Because pragmatism denies the existence any objective truth, this sounds as if Berkowitz is simply upset that the ideology being pushed by this "flavor" of pragmatism is not the ideology he wants pushed. He doesn't argue in favor of the objective nature of individual rights and thus against policies that violate them, but instead that Obama is using a "deceptive form of pragmatism" to promote social justice, presumably instead of the religious conservatism he favors.

Still, despite the shortcomings of his article, it is an interesting read. Most importantly, it serves to highlight the destructive nature of pragmatism, the sneaky political machinations of the Left, and the crippling philosophic ineptitude of conservatism.

Can a Federalism Amendment Lead to Liberty?

Some states are trying to fight back against the ever-menacing growth of the federal government by passing "Sovereignty Resolutions," but as Randy Barnett mentions in today's WSJ.com opinion pages,

While well-intentioned, such symbolic resolutions are not likely to have the slightest impact on the federal courts, which long ago adopted a virtually unlimited construction of Congressional power.

Barnett is a constitutional law professor at Georgetown, and he continues, describing one way in which the states really could assert their influence; by "petition(ing) Congress for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution." The apparent goal of his proposal is to "restore a healthy balance between federal and state power while protecting the liberties of the people."

Any restriction of federal power at this point would be welcome, but what specific proposals is Barnett advocating?

One simple proposal would be to repeal the 16th Amendment enacted in 1913 that authorized a federal income tax. This single change would strike at the heart of unlimited federal power and end the costly and intrusive tax code. [bold added]

Repealing the federal income tax is perhaps one of the most important things that could be done to increase liberty, and would be a major win for individual rights. But is the ultimate goal of Barnett's proposals fully free laissez-faire capitalism, or an incremental, even pragmatic, change? He doesn't say, but his next suggestion indicates it's the latter:

Congress could then replace the income tax with a "uniform" national sales or "excise" tax (as stated in Article I, section 8) that would be paid by everyone residing in the country as they consumed, and would automatically render savings and capital appreciation free of tax. [bold added]

Barnett then goes on to detail proposed language that a "Federalism Amendment" could have. While he has some interesting ideas that would, in fact, reduce some federal influence on individual lives, the problem with such a proposal is that it does not explicitly defend individual rights. "States Rights" is not only a difficult concept to rally around, it misses the fundamental point that simply checking federal power over the individual with state power over the individual does not change the fact that individual rights are being violated.

Of course, we can't just "flip a switch" and abolish rights-violating government. But as George Reisman wrote in Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics, those who are working for a fully laissez-faire society must do so consistently and explicitly, without wavering in their pursuit of their long-range goals. This doesn't mean that interim steps are not valuable or necessary. But they cannot be made pragmatically.

Chapter 20 of his book is available in printable form on his website, and details "a basic outline of the long-range political program [a capitalist movement] would have to follow, including a description of how the most difficult steps in the program might actually be accomplished." It is a must read for those who wish to achieve such a society.

In this light, Reisman's words are both instructive and inspirational. Under the heading, "The Importance of Capitalism as a Conscious Goal," he writes:

The first thing that those in favor of capitalism must do is to make the conscious, explicit decision that they seriously want to achieve a fully capitalist society and are prepared to work for its achievement. We need to view ourselves as active agents of change, working toward a definite goal: laissez-faire capitalism.

The advocacy of laissez-faire capitalism, indeed, of capitalism in any explicit form, has not been present in the political spectrum. In the United States, the political controversies of the last several generations have been carried on between the "liberals," who stand for socialism, and the "conservatives," who stand for nothing except what other groups, including the liberals, have managed to establish as the country's tradition.

The success of the liberals/socialists in enacting their program shows that what we need is a group of educated and articulate individuals who adopt the achievement of capitalism as their goal. Such individuals, dedicated to maintaining constant progress toward capitalism, would constitute a de facto capitalist political party, even if the name of such a party never appeared on a ballot. By virtue of constantly offering their own definite program for political change, they would seize the political initiative. Instead of merely attacking the socialistic proposals of the "liberals" and then yielding to them and abandoning the fight once the proposals happened to be enacted, as is the almost invariable practice of the conservatives, they would always strive to move in the direction of capitalism. As an essential part of the process of doing so, they would never tire of assaulting intellectual targets as far behind enemy lines as possible--such as social security, antitrust legislation, and public education. Never would they accept the existing state of society as immutably given and deserving of preservation merely because it exists. Always they would seek to change the existing state of society until it represented laissez-faire capitalism.

Laissez-faire capitalism would represent their fixed star so to speak. To the extent that present conditions departed from it, they would be radical in seeking to change present conditions. To the extent that conditions in the past had approximated laissez-faire capitalism, they would be reactionary in seeking to reestablish such conditions. To the extent that present conditions were consistent with laissez-faire capitalism, they would be conservative in seeking to preserve those conditions. [all emphasis added]

How does Barnett's "Federalism Amendment" proposal stand up in this context? It's difficult to say based on just the WSJ article. In it, he does not provide a principled defense of his ideas based on capitalism or individual rights, and instead simply seeks to balance federal power by referring to the Founders' original intent in the Constitution. It has been said that, for the Tea Parties to be successful, they must fight for something positive, not just reduced government spending and taxation, and I fear that calls for "States Rights" or originalism in Constitutional interpretation will also fall flat as a rallying cry.

With that said, could not his proposal be used to move the country closer to laissez-faire, as long as it was accompanied by a principled, wide-ranging effort? Could it fit into what Reisman describes below?

The political proposals I make are short- and intermediate-range, as well as long-range in nature. I believe that it will take several generations to achieve a fully capitalist society, mainly because of the time required for the educational process. It will not be enough just to present our long-range goals. It will be necessary to advocate a whole intervening series of short- and intermediate-range goals whose enactment will represent progress toward our long-range goals. The major political task in the years ahead will be continuously to formulate such short and intermediate range goals, and to keep the country moving in the direction of full capitalism by means of their successive achievement.

I think the "Federalism Amendment" idea could be employed in this fashion, even with the transfer of an income tax to sales/excise taxes, as long as it accompanied a reduction in welfare state expenditures, and an overall significant reduction in the tax burden on all individuals. If the shift to sales taxes ends up taking the same amount of property as the income tax, and if the program is enacted without the explicit long-range intent of defending individual rights and moving toward a fully free market, then Barnett's proposal will simply serve as a temporary stop-gap at best, and a dispiriting, Tea Party-killing debacle at worst.

Barnett concludes by saying,

Could such a Federalism Amendment actually be adopted? Stranger things have happened -- including the adoption of each of the existing amendments. States have nothing to lose and everything to gain by making this Federalism Amendment the focus of their resistance to the shrinking of their reserved powers and infringements upon the rights retained by the people. And this Federalism Amendment would provide tea-party enthusiasts and other concerned Americans with a concrete and practical proposal by which we can restore our lost Constitution. [bold added]

Note the focus on state's rights, and the mention of "rights retained by the people," and ask whether this is really worth working toward. Are we trying to restore our "lost Constitution," including its original flaws, or to stand proudly, as individuals, confident in a government sworn to protect those rights? Are individual rights inviolable, or should state or federal governments dole out whatever is left after their power grabbing and regulating?

I appreciate his attempt to check federal power, and a return to the old Constitution would be better than what we have today, but it is not enough. All Barnett needs now is a principled defense of individual rights at the core of his argument, with capitalism as the ultimate goal, and we could have an important first step on the road to liberty.

Housing Glut? Open the Borders

One of the key problems that is keeping the economy from rebounding (over and above the many blunders of the Obama administration) is that the housing market has a surplus that can't clear. The surplus keeps prices down, even driving them lower, and the actions of the government to try and keep risky homeowners in houses they can't afford -- forcing loan restructuring on lenders, giving judges the capability to wipe out "excess" debt when a loan is under water, putting a moratorium on foreclosures -- just prolongs the agony. If the government "buys" up the bad loans and/or the foreclosed properties at very low prices ( the thinking goes "they are using taxpayer money, so they should get the best deal, right?") then all that does is depress the market even more.

What is one surefire way to clear the market surplus of housing without depressing the market any further? Let immigrants buy them in exchange for permanent resident status, say Richard LeFrak and Gary Shilling in the Wall St. Journal.

A better idea [than having the government buy homes] is to offer permanent residence status to the many foreigners who are clamoring to get into the U.S. -- if they buy houses of minimal values (not shacks). ... Their temporary resident status granted upon purchase would become permanent after, perhaps, five years, if they still owned the houses and maintained clean records. The mere announcement of this program might well stop the ongoing collapse in house prices, especially in cities such as Las Vegas, Miami, Phoenix and San Francisco, where prices are down 40% -- but where many foreigners like to live. {bold added}

Any mention of allowing more immigration tends to incite protectionist fears, especially in traditional conservative camps, and even more so in a recession. One of many unfortunate aspects of the mainstream conservative mantra is that it views immigration as a leech on the welfare state. While they are rightfully indignant that immigrants could sneak past the border guards and start living off our taxes, this view misses the broader point that there should be no welfare programs for anyone, immigrant or citizen, to mooch from. And it misses another key point, specifically in reference to those immigrants of means and education who would legitimately buy excess housing stock:

These people tend to be highly productive. In 2006, foreign nationals residing in the U.S. were listed as inventors on 25.6% of the patent applications filed in the U.S., up from 7.6% in 1998. A Council of Graduate Schools survey found that in the fall of 2007, 241,095 non-U.S. citizens were enrolled in graduate programs. Some 55% were in engineering and the biological and physical sciences, compared with only 16% of U.S. citizens. In 2007, more people on temporary visas received doctorates in physical sciences and engineering than U.S. citizens.

There is a high correlation between education and incomes, and in today's uncertain economic climate, many wealthy foreigners desire U.S. resident status just as a number in Hong Kong secured residences in Singapore and Canada before the British handover to China in 1997. They rapidly became over a quarter of Vancouver's population, and brought in billions of dollars to buy houses and make other investments.

We could benefit from such an influx. Merrill Lynch estimates that in 2007 there were 10.1 million individuals in the world, 7.1 million outside the U.S., with at least $1 million in financial assets that totaled $29 trillion. If new immigrants bought the 2.4 million excess houses at today's $184,000 median price with funds from abroad, they would bring untold billions. The immigrants would also buy consumer goods, pay taxes, and start many new businesses. {bold added}

Despite the growing amount of socialism in our tragically mixed economy, the U.S. is still one of the last remaining beacons of freedom and entrepreneurialism. The core of this is the freedom to produce, and to keep the fruits of one's productive efforts. Throughout our history, we have benefitted immensely from the immigration of the men of the mind, the men of talent and drive, who have come to America to create their fortunes. We need them now more than ever. And perhaps even more fundamentally, we all need the freedom that their presence would imply.

Let these future innovators come and buy houses, build businesses, and make their and our lives better.

The Pot, the Kettle, and the Race Card

"Is Barack Obama a socialist?" is the provocative title of a recent Salon.com opinion column by Michael Lind. He examines the latest McCain campaign tactic, that of seizing on the public's negative reaction to Obama's "spread the wealth" comment to Joe the Plumber.

Lind accurately identifies the hypocrisy of McCain speaking out against the redistribution of wealth. To the question of whether or not Obama is a socialist, Lind answers, "If he is, then so is John McCain." Lind goes on to provide many examples in which both McCain and Obama advocate for socialist policies. He even ties in Friedrich von Hayek's and Milton Friedman's stances in support of variants of socialized medicine as an example of the fact that even the supposed defenders of capitalism have their socialist sides. He says:

Without exception, all of the policies supported by Obama belong to broad categories of public policies that have been supported, in one form or another, by conservative-libertarian thinkers like Friedman and von Hayek and conservative politicians like Reagan, George W. Bush and McCain himself. The differences between them and Obama are differences of degree, not of kind.

This is all too true. In many respects, McCain calling out Obama as "redistributionist-in-chief" is just the pot calling the kettle red.

However, while Lind is devastatingly right about the lack of differences between the candidates, he only goes so far as to criticize McCain for his hypocrisy. Lind accepts the popular--and incorrect--notion that conservatives are defenders of capitalism, and he seems to think it's enough to simply point out the hypocrisy. He doesn't take issue with socialism itself, only that McCain shouldn't throw stones in his glass house.

What Lind is really steamed about is that Obama is being branded with the word "socialist" itself. The reason?

McCain's last-minute clarion call is really a racial "dog whistle." The McCain campaign may appear to be debating public philosophy, when in fact it is making a disguised appeal to white racism. [bold added]

Yes, you read that correctly. Out of the blue, with no proof at all, and with very little explanation, Lind whips out the race card. He continues:

If that is the case, then "redistributionist" and "socialist" may be intended to be understood by white swing voters as code words that function the way that "welfare queen" did for the Reagan campaign. A "socialist" or "redistributionist" is a politician who taxes white people like Joe the Plumber and gives money to ... you know who.

This is a very dubious argument. The word "socialist" has an actual meaning, and it has nothing to do with race. Despite my cynical view of McCain, I don't think he is race-baiting with this campaign tactic. It has simply sunk in, finally, that a fiscally conservative message resonates with what is left of the pseudo-capitalism of the Right. The main reason why McCain is trailing at all is that he is too far to the left -- as the examples in Lind's article attest -- to electrify his base. The only thing in McCain's corner is the visceral fear many in America have at the prospect of an Obama presidency. And this is not a racist fear, but a fear that is central to what it means to be an American: the hatred of a tyrannical government.

What Lind thinks of as a "racial dog whistle," calling on the racist fears of a black president, it is nothing of the kind. Rather, it could be seen as an "individual rights dog whistle," calling to America's battered and fading sense-of-life and its fear of an omnipresent State. Without truly understanding why, and certainly without identifying the contradictory premises that confuse their political views, many Americans still are repulsed by the fundamental attack on individual rights that socialist policies represent.

One of the tragedies of this election is that those who respond to McCain's warning have no good alternative if they want a president who will seek to protect their individual rights.