I seem to be having some difficulties in both receiving and sending comments through WordPress. For my regular readers who are also part of this system, could you send me a quick message through the “Comments” section of this post?
If you are not able to get through, please email me at pmacutler@myfairpoint.net.
Thank you for your help
Mark Steyn, always an enjoyable read for his acute perceptions and somewhat biting analysis makes little effort to sugar coat his observations. In the January 25 edition of National Review his article “Welcome to Rome” explores the possibility that America is busily setting itself up for decline.
After all, Mr. Steyn points out, “the greatest empire the world had ever known” (England) by 1977 had “shriveled to an economically moribund strike-bound socialist slough of despond, one in which the government ran the hospitals, the automobile industry, and much of the housing stock, and partly as a consequence thereof, had permanent high unemployment and confiscatory tax rates that drove its best talent to seek refuge abroad”. “Stop me if this sounds familiar”, he jokingly implores, drawing a none-too-subtle parallel to the path that the Obama administration has laid out for its lemming-like followers to race down.
Mr. Steyn speculates that national (or empire) decline is psychological and requires acceptance of that path by its citizens. For example, he cites the conversion, within only a couple of generations, of the “obnoxiously militarist” German people to “just as obnoxiously pacifist” and as “avowedly ‘European’ as they were once menacingly nationalist”. He also opines that “there is no rational basis for late-20th-century Britain’s conclusion that it had no future other than as an outlying province of a centralized Euro nanny state dominated by nations whose political, legal, and cultural traditions are entirely alien to its own”, leading to the conclusion that, “The embrace of such a fate is a psychological condition, not an economic one”.
Not a bad argument, particularly when a review of the first-year actions of our current Leftist administration may well result in concluding that is taking the first steps down the path of decline and subservience that currently defines so many Western nations.
These observations might be bolstered by Mr. Steyn’s recitation of economic failures in what became the world’s leading economic power after it wrested that title from Britain in the late 1880’s. He highlights the city of Detroit, which went from “the world’s industrial powerhouse to an urban wasteland” and “the once-golden state of California (which) atrophied into a land of government run by the government for the government”.
So what happens when the baggage of unsustainable entitlements, unchecked government interference in the economy accompanied by centralization of power and planning, and a continuing assault on individual liberty finally overloads the wagon until the weight and inertia of the oppressive socialist state overcomes the pulling power of the productive members of our society? The spores of internal rot begin to take root and decline becomes an acceptable alternative to that portion of society willing to trade the loss of freedoms for security.
Friedrich August von Hayek, British economist and Nobel Prize co-winner, clearly outlines the dangers of “democratic socialism” in his book The Road to Serfdom. He lists the virtues of “independence and self-reliance, individual initiative and local responsibility, the successful reliance on voluntary activity, noninterference with one’s neighbor and the tolerance of the different and queer, respect for custom and tradition, and a healthy suspicion of power and authority”. Although these attributes may be faintly discernable in the modern Libertarian philosophy, it would appear that in the two-thirds of a century that have passed since the publication of Hayek’s book a significant part of America’s population (not to mention a far greater number of Europeans) have gravitated to the siren song of the statists. It is no coincidence that Hayek’s defense of classic liberalism and free-market capitalism is in direct contrast to the Keynesian theories that are so readily embraced by the elitists who populate Obama’s technocracy.
An understanding of history must be a vital component for governance. If we, as a nation, wish to avoid decline and the accompanying loss of international security, power, and prestige then we must be much more careful in selecting our national leaders than we have in the most recent Presidential election. The current resident in the White House has clearly shown that he and his administration have little concern with the import of history (other than to revise it to suit their policies).
Historian, philosopher and reformer Arnold Toynbee left us with this clear and concise warning; “Civilizations die from suicide, not from murder”.
January can be a trying month here in the Pine Tree State. “The Dead of Winter” descends upon us after the glitter and fun of the holiday season. Heavy snows can demand hours of white-knuckle driving, endless shoveling and roof clearing and, in my case, an escalating profit for the makers of Tiger Balm pain-relieving patches. Daylight hours are at their lowest count and sunshine is at times spotty and infrequent. Outside activities such as bringing in firewood for the wood stove leave one victimized by icy, cutting north winds.
But this January, which we can regard in the past tense tomorrow, has seemed to go by quickly. We had a series of snowstorms that left an accumulation nearing two feet, but then a few days of forty-degree weather and a day of heavy rain cleared away all but a few inches. There have been only a handful of nights that nudged below zero degrees Fahrenheit and an equal number of days with highs in the single numbers. The sun is gaining warmth with each passing day as daylight hours begin to build.
Best of all, there have been positive happenings that raise the spirits. My two sons living in New York and Massachusetts have both found employment even though the positions are without benefits and of undetermined duration. The Massachusetts Senate election results provided glimmers of hope for those of us who are not wedded to Obama-worship and one-party rule. The New Orleans Saints are going to the Super Bowl, some of the best news in recent times for that beleaguered city.
My good friend Chuck from http://headmuscle.wordpress.com recently remarked that oriental philosophy tends to regard life as long term and cyclical, rather than approaching it from the less accepting and rush to instant gratification view that characterizes the Western approach to dealing with life’s trials and tribulations. Having lived in the Orient for a few years, I very much agree with his evaluation.
Perhaps I am also influenced by having lived so much of my life in the rural Northeast where we are in close contact with the changing seasons. We are beginning to slowly arise from the dormant, harsh, restrictive environment of winter. No more than a week or two ago I spied a kamikaze squadron of robins pecking hopefully at the remaining frozen apples attached to the tree near the house. There are more birds at the feeders and the appearance of finches, nuthatches and tufted titmice are the harbinger to “changing of the guard” as the migrating species of birds will eventually slowly infiltrate from the south. In the next few weeks, buds will merge on the branches of the maple trees.
Perhaps the winter of the past twelve months is slowly losing its icy grip on our nation’s hopes and dreams. The “Massachusetts Miracle” may herald the tiniest beginnings of the new growth to come. With careful husbandry of the planting of the new seeds by Independent voters’ rejection of one-party rule, “Town Hall Meetings”, and Tea Party gatherings, the new harvest this fall may prove more abundant than originally anticipated.
Winter, spring, summer and fall. Dormancy, the ascendance of new life, the enjoyment of the fullness of maturation, and the bittersweet beauty of the slow decline and the approaching sleep.
Recognition of the cycle can provide us with the opportunity to better appreciate the harvest that life delivers and the experience and wisdom to understand and accept what is given to us. For life is indeed the greatest of gifts.
In considering the President’s State of the Union Speech and its implications, it might be helpful to attempt a quick review of Obama’s accomplishments over the first year of his administration.
Healthcare: A large number of Americans considered current government-run programs such as the Post Office, the TARP program, and Cash for Clunkers and expressed severe doubts about turning over our health care system to government dominance. There is wide agreement that incremental changes targeting specific problem areas would be more effective and productive than the rattling, clunking, horrifically expensive, odious creation that a Democratic Congress is attempting to force upon the public. Obama’s reaction? “I ….. know what happens once we get this done. The American people will suddenly learn that this bill does things they like”.
The War on Terror: To his credit, Obama has made use of the success of the victory of the Bush-instigated “surge” in Iraq to redirect some of our attention to the problems in Afghanistan. Our country narrowly averted disaster when failures in our national security and intelligence systems failed to prevent an attempted bombing of a civilian airliner (which failed only because of faulty detonation components) approaching Detroit. The President did little to inspire confidence when he avoided addressing this potential calamity for several days while relaxing in Hawaii and his Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, compounded the unease when she stated that “the system worked”. Eric Holder, Obama’s Attorney General, has made the foolish and reckless decision to treat the “underwear bomber” and other high-profile attackers as common criminals and to try them in Federal Courts .
Guantanamo: Still open, despite Obama’s promises to close it before January, 2010. The current administation has increased the release of detainees, many to Yemen which has become a hotbed of terrorist training and operations planning.
Unemployment: The jobless rate stays at 10% after peaking briefly at 10.2% in late November. January’s filings for new applications for unemployment benefits were over 470,000. Obama claims that the “stimulus bill” “created or saved” over 2 million jobs, a wildly optimistic claim that was recently refuted by the New York Times and other sources.
Assorted Bailouts: GMC still flounders, as does Chrysler. Banks used TARP money to inflate their bottom lines and pay huge bonuses to their executives while refraining from loaning operating money to businesses of all kinds. Insurance companies have made no attempt to rein in their disasterous investments, nor to moderate consumer charges.
Ethical Government: Hardly, considering the collection of tax cheats, radicals, and liars that populate his administration. Corruption among politicians is flagrant; for example, the vote-buying of Senators during the process of structuring health care reform proposals.
Transparency: Despite campaign promises to the contrary, Congressional meetings over health care were exempted from CSPAN coverage.
And on and on …….
In a recent post, Victor Davis Hanson refers to “Plato’s ideal society (where) philosopher kings and elite Guardians shepherded the rabble to force them to do the ‘right’ thing. To prevent the unwashed from doing anything stupid, the all-powerful, all-wise Guardians often had to tell a few ‘noble’ lies. And, of course, these caretakers themselves were exempt from most rules that they made from others”.
Obama has assembled a stable of ideologues, “many Ivy-League-educated and without much experience outside academia and government” to populate his technocracy, to flood our country with legislation and administrative intrusions that most people are hesitant or downright unwilling to accept but that the elite has decided are good for them.
Obama employed his rhetorical flair again last night during his speech, but as usual it was long on promise and short on substance. After watching a couple of post-event focus group discussions, it was interesting for me that those attending were split 50-50 when asked if the President had impressed them with his solutions for the country’s problems. Younger participants almost unanimously gave Obama good marks whereas older people were critical, stating that they felt that his promises were empty.
I would fall into the latter category. Having had a year to listen to what Obama says and then watch what he does has left me with a profound distrust for his attempts to coddle up to the electorate.
Obama and his cronies are acolytes of the modern American progressive movement, which in turn is a kissing cousin of the democratic socialism that has neutered the nations of Europe. The current administration is hell-bent on implementing statism and the accompanying destruction of free enterprise here in our country.
His dissertation of last evening has only reinforced my conviction that continuing hard times are ahead for all of us unless American voters force Congress to repudiate the schemes of Obama and his Leftist cohorts.
Both Maine and the nation have experienced regression under one-party rule – Maine having labored under this burden for far longer than has our country.
Maine will choose a new Governor this fall and currently there are over twenty candidates clamoring for the nomination. I voiced my incredulity to a friend recently over why anyone would want to vie for a position of leadership in a state where the overall unemployment rate is significantly above the national average, our state government’s attitude toward businesses is recognized as one of the most negative in America, our tax burden is one of the highest in the nation and yet we are unable to pay our current debts (or the principle and debt on a cascading river of new bond issues), and at least twenty-five percent of the population is dependent upon help of some sort doled out by the poohbahs in Augusta.
The answer came in the form of another question; “Why do you think that people running for state elected offices are willing to spend outrageous sums of money to be elected to positions that pay so little?”
It took only a short amount of research of the salaries provided to Maine state administrative positions before the light began to dawn. While the Governor is paid a paltry $70,000 a year and Legislators under $20,000 for a two-year term (plus very generous allowances for travel and subsistence), there are over thirty-five executive positions that pay over $100,00 a year and many others that exceed the Governor’s salary. Not surprisingly, the majority of these positions are filled by former political office holders. An examination of what jobs have been filled by former Maine Governors reveals that once one leaves the governorship there are many lucrative positions available.
Our current Governor, a Democrat, has served for eight years. The Maine Legislature has been under a Democratic majority for several decades, engineered by a cabal of “good old boys” who are resistant to economic change that is not focused on tourism, forest products, or a few favored businesses such as the retail icon L.L. Bean (although a recent devotion toward “green jobs” – supported by Federal funding – such as alternative power sources has recently surfaced).
So the public here in Maine continues to search and scrape for means to support not just themselves and their families, but an ever-increasing tax and permit burden that provides a very good living for the overseers of a welfare state whose benefits are among the most generous in the nation. With a coalition of state aid recipients, state employees, and union members voting against any kind of tax reform or benefits reduction, Democrats can continue their ruinous agenda of tax and spend with relative impunity, even though current state revenues are unable to support the system’s expenditures.
Maine’s current Governor, who now has no reason to fear re-election, has finally insisted on a balanced budget resulting in chaos in the Legislature and howls of dismay from all of the “helping agencies” that collectively spend sixty per cent of the state’s budget. The Democrat-controlled Legislature, being devoted to the care and feeding of special interest groups, is facing an unprecedented quandary resulting in unmitigated dithering.
If Obama Hood and his merry band are allowed to continue with their Chicago-style corrupt politics and progressive agenda, than one cannot find more accurate forecast for America than to compare its future to the situation that Maine currently endures.
Maine was once a province of Massachusetts, that placid Democratic stronghold that suddenly woke up with a roar heard nationwide and revolted against one-party rule in Washington by electing a (gasp!) Republican to fill one of its Senate seats. “One small step” for Massachusetts. Conservatives in Maine can but hope that the revolution will touch our cloistered enclave.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves” —– Edward R. Murrow.
The same holds true for any given state.
First things first: Mr. (and now Senator-elect) Scott Brown is to be congratulated for an obviously effective campaign that resulted in one of the most unusual upsets in recent elections. To engineer a victory after trailing by double digits in the polls conducted only a month ago is a remarkable turnaround. Even more impressive, Senator Brown managed this feat in a state where registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans three to one.
A major tip of the hat should be directed to Independents, who Senator Brown targeted during his campaign and who certainly provided the majority of votes that led to his election.
At this point, however, I feel compelled to issue a strong warning to the Republican Party; don’t blow this one! You had an opportunity to institute meaningful reform after the “Contract With America” resonated with the American public and you gained control in Washington, but “politics as usual” was just too strong a lure and professed good intentions gave way to an abandonment of principle culminating with the disastrous governmental expansion policies implemented during the last years of the Bush Presidency.
Republican leadership needs to temper their post-election exuberance with caution and somber reflection, avoiding any perception of gloating, and instead thoroughly investigating and reviewing the tactics and the underlying motivations that produced such a stunning result.
Scott Brown, and also the new Governors of Virginia and New Jersey, all ran cheerful, upbeat, populist campaigns, stressing what benefits a vote for them could mean for their constituents. Bitter partisanship was avoided, as were personal attacks on the opposition. Addressing the concerns of independent voters proved to be a key, for unhappiness with strict ideology has caused a significant withdrawal from registration with either of the two major political parties.
It is vitally important for politicians to recognize that many Americans appear to be fed up with the arrogance, incompetence, self-interest, and denial exhibited by many members of the Washington establishment and that a large numbers of voters are willing to insist that legislation be based on their interests and not the self-serving wants of special interest groups. The despotism of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have made them the poster children of the tyrannical far-Left, those self-professed opponents of the Constitution who seem determined to feast upon the perceived spoils gained through the bestowing of the mantle of one-party rule, while ignoring the responsibility to govern judiciously that comes with such power.
Is it not clear by now that Barack Obama is severely lacking in experience, competence and perception? An argument could be made that his rushing to Boston did more to hurt the Democratic candidate than to help win the election, just as his attempts to ensure a Democratic victory in both Virginia and New Jersey fell far short of the mark. Actually, this is just one more inept performance in a long string of domestic and international blunders.
Massachusetts voters, to their great and everlasting credit, have picked up the gauntlet and assumed a leadership position in the battle to regain America’s freedom.
A Senate seat does not belong to descendents of local royalty, nor to their designated representatives. Nor it is a prize reserved for a single political party.
No, it is “The People’s Seat”, and in this particular instance the people rose up to claim it. This should be both a lesson and an inspiration for all who love and respect our country and what it stands for.
This is another one of those things that friends send me through email and that is so important that I have decided to reproduce it in hopes of wider dissemination.
I can’t help but despair over the fact that there are so many useful approaches to defeating terrorism that have surfaced from experts in the field, but are ignored by the closed minds of the ideologues that our current leadership has appointed to protect our nation.
| Juval Aviv was the Israeli Agent upon whom the movie ’Munich‘ was based. He was Golda Meir’s bodyguard, and she appointed him to track down and bring to justice the Palestinian terrorists who took the Israeli athletes hostage and killed them during the Munich Olympic Games.
In a lecture in New York City he shared information that EVERY American needs to know — but that our government has not yet shared with us. He predicted the London subway bombing on the Bill O’Reilly show on Fox News stating publicly that it would happen within a week. At the time, O’Reilly laughed, and mocked him saying that in a week he wanted him back on the show. Unfortunately, within a week the terrorist attack had occurred. Juval Aviv gave intelligence (via what he had gathered in Israel and the Middle East) to the Bush Administration about 9/11, a month before it occurred. His report specifically said they would use planes as bombs and target high profile buildings and monuments. Congress has since hired him as a security consultant. Now for his future predictions. He predicts the next terrorist attack on the U.S. Will occur within the next few months. Forget hijacking airplanes, because he says terrorists will NEVER try and hijack a plane again as they know the people onboard will never go down quietly again. Aviv believes our airport security is a joke — that we have been reactionary rather than proactive in developing strategies that are truly effective. For example: 1) Our airport technology is outdated. We look for metal, and the new explosives are made of plastic. 2) He talked about how some idiot tried to light his shoe on fire. Because of that, now everyone has to take off their shoes. A group of idiots tried to bring aboard liquid explosives. Now we can’t bring liquids on board. He says he’s waiting for some suicidal maniac to pour liquid explosive on his underwear; at which point, security will have us all traveling naked! Every strategy we have is reactionary. 3) We only focus on security when people are heading to the gates. Aviv says that if a terrorist attack targets airports in the future, they will target busy times on the front end of the airport when/where people are checking in. It would be easy for someone to take two suitcases of explosives, walk up to a busy check-in line, ask a person next to them to watch their bags for a minute while they run to the restroom or get a drink, and then detonate the bags BEFORE security even gets involved. In Israel, security checks bags BEFORE people can even ENTER the airport. Aviv says the next terrorist attack here in America is imminent and will involve suicide bombers and non-suicide bombers in places where large groups of people congregate. (I.e., Disneyland, Las Vegas casinos, big cities (New York, San Francisco, Chicago, etc.) and that it will also include shopping malls, subways in rush hour, train stations, etc., as well as, rural America this time. The interlands (Wyoming, Montana, etc.). The attack will be characterized by simultaneous detonations around the country (terrorists like big impact), involving at least 5-8 cities, including rural areas. Aviv says terrorists won’t need to use suicide bombers in many of the larger cities, because at places like the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, they can simply valet park a car loaded with explosives and walk away. Aviv says all of the above is well known in intelligence circles, but that our U. S. Government does not want to ‘alarm American citizens’ with the facts. The world is quickly going to become ‘a different place’, and issues like ‘global warming’ and political correctness will become totally irrelevant. On an encouraging note, he says that Americans don’t have to be concerned about being nuked. Aviv says the terrorists who want to destroy America will not use sophisticated weapons. They like to use suicide as a front-line approach. It’s cheap, it’s easy, it’s effective; and they have an infinite abundance of young militants more than willing to ‘meet their destiny’. He also says the next level of terrorists, over which America should be most concerned, will not be coming from abroad. But will be, instead, ‘homegrown’, having attended and been educated in our own schools and universities right here in the U.S. He says to look for ’students’ who frequently travel back and forth to the Middle East. These young terrorists will be most dangerous because they will know our language and will fully understand the habits of Americans; but that we Americans won’t know/understand a thing about them. Aviv says that, as a people, Americans are unaware and uneducated about the terrorist threats we will inevitably face. America still has only a handful of Arabic and Farsi speaking people in our intelligence networks, and Aviv says it is critical that we change that fact SOON. So, what can America do to protect itself? From an intelligence perspective, Aviv says the U.S. needs to stop relying on satellites and technology for intelligence. We need to, instead, follow Israel’s, Ireland’s and England’s hands-on examples of human intelligence, both from an infiltration perspective as well as to pay attention to, and trust ‘aware’ citizens to help. We need to engage and educate ourselves as citizens; however, our U. S. government continues to treat us, its citizens, ‘like babies’. Our government thinks we ‘can’t handle the truth’ and are concerned that we’ll panic if we understand the realities of terrorism. Aviv says this is a deadly mistake. Aviv recently created/executed a security test for our Congress, by placing an empty briefcase in five well-traveled spots in five major cities. The results? Not one person called 911 or sought a policeman to check it out. In fact, in Chicago, someone tried to steal the briefcase! In comparison, Aviv says that citizens of Israel are so well ’trained’ that an unattended bag or package would be reported in seconds by citizen(s) who know to publicly shout, ’Unattended Bag!’ The area would be quickly & calmly cleared by the citizens themselves. Unfortunately, America hasn’t been yet ‘hurt enough’ by terrorism for their government to fully understand the need to educate its citizens or for the government to understand that it’s their citizens who are, inevitably, the best first-line of defense against terrorism. Aviv also was concerned about the high number of children here in America who were in preschool and kindergarten after 9/11, who were ‘lost’ without parents being able to pick them up, and about our schools that had no plan in place to best care for the students until parents could get there. (In New York City, this was days, in some cases!) He stresses the importance of having a plan, that’s agreed upon within your family, of how to respond in the event of a terrorist emergency. He urges parents to contact their children’s schools and demand that the schools too, develop plans of actions, just as they do in Israel. Does your family know what to do if you can’t contact one another by phone? Where would you gather in an emergency? He says we should all have a plan that is easy enough for even our youngest children to remember and follow. Aviv says that the U. S. government has in force a plan, that in the event of another terrorist attack, EVERYONE’s ability to use cell phones, blackberries, etc., will immediately be cut-off, as this is the preferred communication source used by terrorists and is often the way that their bombs are detonated. How will you communicate with your loved ones in the event you cannot speak to each other? You need to have a plan. If you understand, and believe what you have just read, then you must feel compelled to send this to every concerned parent, guardian, grandparents, uncles, aunts, whomever. Don’t stop there. In addition to sharing this via e-mail, contact and discuss this information with whomever it makes sense to. Make contingency plans with those you care about. Better that you have plans in place, and never have to use them, then to have no plans in place, and find you needed them. If you choose not to share this, or not to have a plan in place, and nothing ever occurs – good for you! However, in the event something does happen, and even more so, if it directly affects your loved ones, then this e-mail will haunt you forever. Telling yourself after the fact, “I should have sent this to so and so, but deleted it as so much trash from old Bill Jones, plus, I just didn’t believe it”, will not change anything. You were alerted, had the chance to do something, and instead of erring on the side of caution, you chose to disregard, if nothing else, a sensible, valuable warning. |
And the blinders should be – that is, for those who are not so supremely dense that they refuse to recognize the enormous threat that Democratic Leadership presents to this country and its citizens.
What has me genuinely riled up is the announcement (by union leaders) of the deal struck in their behalf by Barack Obama and his sycophants. I refer to the fact that as part of the new “health care initiative” union members will be exempt from the tax on “Cadillac Plans” proposed by its Democrat architects as part of their plans to “pay for” their massive redistribution of wealth under the guise of “fixing the health care system”.
So, unless you are a member of any various number of unions (auto workers, educators, municipal workers, etc.) – or, of course, the recipent of innumerable federal “assistance” programs, you will wind up paying lots more for your health care programs. Why, you ask? Because there are far too few taxpayers who are well-off enough to make up the loss of funds caused by the exemption of special interest groups from a tax that is not only just plain unfair but also discriminatory. It doesn’t require a degree in economics to determine who will wind up taking the brunt of the costs now, does it?
If ever there was crystal clear evidence of just how thoroughly corrupted The White House has become under this practitioner of Chicago politics, this latest plan for political payback provides the unalterable truth.
Not only that, but this “deal” is also indicative of an enormous power grab in the sense that unless an American citizen is “connected”, he will indeed be “second class” and unrepresented unless he bows to the inevitability of becoming a union member and succumbing to the tyranny, despotism and illegal activities that have characterized union activities for decades.
Are you willing to put up with this? Damned if I am. As a free citizen, I am unwilling to accept the machinations of this tin pot dictator and his cadre of “elites” whose ever-more obvious goal is subjugation of all Americans to their plan to conquer and enslave their subjects through economic and social “re-education” (following the path of their Marxist brethren throughout the world).
I had hopes for some reasonable improvements in health care administration and availability, but it is now my goal to defeat not only this monstrosity of a bill but also any and all politicians who aid and abet its passage.
I would urge my Massachusetts neighbors to insist upon their right to freedom from tyranny and vote against the Democrat who supports that bill in their election this coming Tuesday for the vacant U.S. Senate seat. You rose up in defense of freedom once, neighbors, please consider leading the rebellion against tyranny in this instance.
We are now faced with the choice of defending ourselves by acting together to support freedom or truly finding ourselves firmly beneath an oppressive boot.
It is becoming more and more difficult, these days, to determine exactly how folks on the other side of the fence (from conservatives) are identifying themselves.
“The Left” is a term that lacks expansive definition. “Liberal” was replaced by “Progressive” in the not too distant past and just recently I heard the comment that because of negative connotations “Progressive” is giving way to “Populist” (from an American political party that originally, in the 1890’s purported to represent the interests of farmers and laborers, along with advocating increased currency issue, free coinage of gold and silver, public ownership of railroads, and a graduated federal income tax).
This morphing of labels might be construed as an effort to gain some distance from the increasingly unpopular polices practiced by the current administration, what with an election looming and growing voter disenchantment with the ruling political party and its titular head, Barack Obama.
Nonetheless, it is important to gain some historical perspective about the history and motivations that contributed to the political machinations now practiced by our national leadership.
The late 1800’s showcased the emergence of a new generation of German-trained or inspired Ph.D.s who ushered in the transformation of the conventional European liberalism into the new “progressivism” championed by admirers of Germany’s Social Democrats (Bismark’s “top-down socialism”), Belgium’s Socialists and their counterparts in France and Holland. Richard Ely, who in 1881 began teaching at the brand-new Johns Hopkins University (conceived as a German-style institution), went on to wield considerable influence over Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt and Wisconsin Governor Robert La Follette, Sr., who was an influential admirer of Ely’s concept of using academic experts to guide government policy – specifically in the areas of economics – and his proselytizing of the progressive social gospel of “Christian socialism” in America.
When the American Economic Association was formed, five of the first six officers had studied in Germany, as had at least 20 of its first 26 presidents.
Ely’s advocacy of what he called “coercive philanthropy” (allowing experts to determine which way social betterment lies) and to “equalize opportunity (giving) each the development, complete and harmonious, of all his faculties” paved the way for FDR’s Economic Bill of Rights (The New Deal) in later years. Regulating “industrial and other social relations existing among men is a condition of freedom”, Ely wrote, suggesting that “industrial armies” consisting of young men being conscripted as civilians straight into the factories would be beneficial for both industry and mankind alike.
Ely was a prime architect in the transformation of liberalism from a “doctrine of negative liberty” (having the state stay on the sidelines) to a “doctrine of positive liberty” (by allowing the state to provide its citizens with the tools and teaching to channel them in the desired direction, thereby allowing them to achieve salvation through welfare-state policies).
This rejection of the “natural-rights principles” embedded in the Constitution by our nation’s founders was replaced by “a new understanding of freedom, history, and the state” promulgated by progressives who criticized every aspect of our traditional way of life and recommended reforms or “social reorganization” on a sweeping scale. Assisting the growth of this new, “positive” role of the state and the “intellectual transformation” required was John Dewey, holder of appointments in both philosophy and education at the University of Chicago and Columbia University.
Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to package progressive social theory in a fashion that disguised its radical elements that so drastically differed from America’s founding principles. He also began the attempt to disengage from the term “socialism” in describing his social theories, recognizing that his association with the Socialist Party and its negative Marxist connotations hindered his attempts to insist that Liberalism, when defined as a commitment to certain “enduring ” fundamental principles such as liberty and individualism, actually allied his theories with those of our founding fathers.
Oliver Wendall Holmes, appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1902 by Theodore Roosevelt, America’s first progressive President, picked up the banner of progressivism when it became evident that the judicial branch of government provided the best opportunity to forward progressive ideology. Holmes led the charge to eradicate judicial reasoning that was based on natural law or natural rights, excluding morality on the grounds that it had nothing to do with the law but is merely a state of mind.
Holmes concluded that there are no objective standards for determining right and wrong, and there are no “just” or “constitutional” answers to legal constitutions and thereby fostered the relativism that today characterizes both our legal and ethical governmental viewpoints. After all, a “constitutional” concept would require an understanding that only known and applied laws, whose meaning remains stable over time, would successfully bind citizens and Holmesian “legal realism” denies this possibility.
But perhaps the most enlightening link between the birth of the progressive movement in America and the modern Democratic leadership would be Herbert Croly, author of The Promise of American Life and Progressive Democracy . The Promise, first published in 1909, was regarded as essential reading for college students through the 1960’s. As the founder of modern liberalism, Croly preached that America could achieve its destiny through “Hamiltonian means” (the power of a strong central government) to reach “Jeffersonian ends” (the enhancement of individual freedom). He disregarded Hamilton’s idea of a commercial republic and Jefferson’s yeoman individualists in favor of the “greater equality” of Bismark’s Germany, where “little by little the fertile seed of Bismark’s Prussian patriotism grew into a German semi-democratic nationalism” whose great virtue was organization.
Croly rejected what he saw as economic inequality in America as “an expression of an industrial capitalism born of economic individualism that needed to be rectified by state action”. His plan can be described as an attempt to achieve (Auguste) Comtean ends (the worship of society) by Rosseauean means, that is, the end result being a “plebiscitary democracy led by enlightened experts”. Sound familiar?
If today’s progressives (liberals, populists, whatever) have a difficult time trying to decide how to portray themselves, it is because of the general American aversion toward the elitist concepts of founders such as Croly, Holmes, Dewey and Ely who rejected the ideas of God-given rights and freedoms for all and gravitated toward the dark, repressive philosophies of Marxism and fascism.
The Obama administration’s policies become easier to understand once one becomes acquainted with the statist philosophy that dictates their approach to governing.
To support my conclusions, I have borrowed some of the material contained in four separate essays (described as “The Four Horsemen of Progressivism”) that appeared in the Dec.31st issue of the National Review. I would highly recommend that my readers take the time to review this information in its original, far more extensive form.
Sensible Health Care Reform
February 8, 2010It is an oft-repeated mantra presented by Obama and his minions when the subject is health care reform; “Republicans are the party of No!”; “Present me with ideas and I will listen”; (from his State of the Union Speech) “if anyone from either party has a better approach … let me know”. Anyone who swallows this line of b.s. should pay close attention to the following.
There is only one proposed bill in existence that the Congressional Budget Office has said would actually lower health costs and that is a bill presented by the House Republicans – and ignored by the President, Nancy Pelosi and most of the mass media. Jeffrey H. Anderson, the director of the Benjamin Rush Society, in conjunction with Tevi Troy, has proposed many of the reform measures contained in a “small bill” that reflects many of the ideas that are widely accepted among House and Senate Republicans as well as by many of their Democratic colleagues.
The stated purpose of the “Small Bill Proposal for Sensible Health Care Reform” is “To make health insurance more accessible, affordable, and portable — without increasing government control, jeopardizing the quality of care, or breaking the bank”. This might be accomplished in seven basic steps.
1. Cut costs by preventing runaway malpractice lawsuits. This is anathema to the Democratic party leaders, who reap enormous campaign contributions from the trial lawyers association. By capping non-economic and punitive damages while still allowing unlimited economic damages to cover financial loss, there would be no increase in government spending and savings to private citizens due to doctors not having to raise their fees to cover “defensive medicine procedures”. The trial lawyers association would not like to see this happen, for obvious reasons.
2. Cut costs by allowing Americans to buy insurance across state lines. There would be no cause for increase in government spending and Americans could shop coast-to-coast for the plans that appeal to them the most.
3. Cut costs by allowing lower premiums for healthier lifestyles. This proposal centers on cutting costs to those who eat and drink in moderation, exercise, or don’t smoke. Currently, Federal regulations prohibit companies from offering more than a 20% discount to employees who make these choices. There would be no increase in government spending here.
4. Increase access to health insurance by ending the unfair tax on the uninsured (and self-insured), giving them a tax break similar to that which is already available to those with employer-provided insurance, resulting in refundable annual tax credits of $2,500 per person or $5,000 per family. Employer-provided insurance with its tax-exempt status, and the rest of the tax code would remain intact. This provision would mean an increase in government spending of approximately $80 billion and reduced revenues of approximately $120 billion (for refunds of taxes paid).
5. Provide further help for those who are uninsured and have expensive pre-existing conditions by increasing federal support for state-run or state-organized high-risk pools. Thirty-five states already have such pools to help those with pre-existing conditions and to assist the remaining states would cause an increase in government spending of approximately $100 billion.
6. Convert some federal funds into block grants to states and reallocate the savings resulting from reducing the number of uninsured. Disproportionate Share Hospital (or “dish”) payments presently reimburse hospitals for emergency room treatment of uninsured patients. A reduction in the number of uninsured (caused by the above proposals) frees up money that could be allocated more efficiently through the block grants. Beginning with block grants pegged at 75% of each state’s current DSH funding level, reductions of 5% each year until the grants reach the 50% level in Year 6 could result in a savings of approximately $180 billion with no increase in government spending.
7. Implement additional reforms from the House Republican health bill (Yes, Virginia, one actually does exist despite Democratic denials), such as adopting regulatory reform in the small group and non-group markets, standards for electronic administration, an abbreviated approval [pathway for follow-on biological products, and HSA reforms. There are no increased government costs and a savings of an estimated $20 billion.
Estimated 10-year totals under this “small bill” reveal $180 billion in costs and 1.1 million newly insured per $20 billion spent, with no deficit spending. The CBO projections for the Senate Bill from 2014 to 2023 are $217 billion in deficit spending (unless doctors’ pay under Medicare is cut by 21%) and total spending increases of $2.5 trillion (supposedly offset by Tax increases of $1.0 trillion, Medicare cuts of $800 billion, and Medicare Advantage cuts of $214 billion), ending in 260,00 newly insured per $20 billion spent.
A more in-depth analysis of the “small bill” can be viewed at http://www.smallbill.org.
The President appears unwilling to deviate from any of his expressed agenda regarding health care and/or the expansion of big government in general, but it is important to note that some of the mechanics of an incremental approach to health care reform already exist. If there is any truth in Obama’s recently expressed intent for a bi-partisan approach to achieve gains for the American people in health care reform, then proposals already advanced by “the party of No!” should not continue to be ignored.
The goal of health care reform must be designed to benefit the public, not to further the political fortunes of any particular party or ideological group.
Posted in National politics, Obama, Political and Social Commentary, health care, taxes | Tagged economics, health care reform, Obama, politics, small bill, taxes | 2 Comments »