Subject: Despotism and Tired Democracies
Dear Mr. Goldberg,
This is in reference to:
"Rush & Daschle | & the great freedom debate."
"Freedom! Horrible Freedom!"
"Americans enjoy more freedom today than ever"
"A despotism may almost be defined as a tired democracy."
-- G.K. Chesterton The Everlasting Man, Part I Chapter III "The Antiquity of Civilisation"
Because I know you LOVE cliches, let me define Chesterton's quote with a cliche that's so worn out that it's been forgotten: "You can't fight city hall." Maybe it's not used as much anymore because city hall is no longer down the street. Instead, city hall's address is in Washington D.C.
I've waded through enough G-Files, columns and articles to know that you get it. You understand the the principle of subsidiarity or sphere sovereignty. You like to tout the Braveheart theory and I think this quote of yours is apt:
"What they meant by freedom was the ability to live according to well-established conceptions of authority and tradition, without the meddling of the federal government." [Left v. State, Again]
Amen.
But perhaps you go awry by claiming that we are more free than ever, as if freedom were some linear scale of measurable quantities. You insist that we include the whole fruit basket and count the apples and oranges. But what if someone thinks apples are so much more important than oranges? No amount of argument about our great advances in free speech is going to convince me that my ability to perform at a strip club is somehow balanced against my inability to critique a politician within sixty days before an election. First of all, I'm too old, fat and ugly (and the wrong sex) to make money as a stripper. In the second case, it's nigh impossible to remove the incumbent Senator McCain with his "Incumbancy Protection Act" short of assassination (they'll take care of that with gun control laws). The point is that political free speech is INFINITELY more important than a stripper's right to free expression. I can live without stripper's rights, because we can still debate on whether it's the right thing to cart strippers off to the gulag.
So, how far have we progressed in the principles of local self-government? How important are school board elections? Well the contra arguments are strong. It is incredibly important that the courts can dictate how the schools can be run. They have told a city and a state to raise taxes for schools. They have forced bussing. They have removed anything remotely associated with religion from schools. With the power of the purse, the federal Department of Education can dictate its desires. And meanwhile, the local school board has to beg for money against that harmless 50% tax rate you're not worried about.
It's the size of that leviathan which is squeezing out the cultural and local institutions that we cultural conservatives care deeply about. As I recently read on First Things, a commentator (I don't remember who, but I could probably find the article if pressed) approved of Bush's faith-based initiative because these independent organizations can't possibly make the cut on their own. Why the hell is that? Just like the Medicare tar baby that will eventually guarantee socialized health care and free pills for everyone, we can count on the federal government to step in with laudable goals of improving something, only to find out that the government needs to step in again to "fix it."
Hayek commented on a legislature's difficulty in managing an economy. Similarly, I don't think a legislature can manage the leviathan. It's not that I want to replace that idiot McCain because he can't manage the leviathan. Anybody I'd propose wouldn't do any better. But I might hope that my suggested replacement would reduce that monster to managable levels (hopefully to shift administration to the local level -- if it is so desired). Please tell John McCain that people contribute to political campaigns because the government is so powerful. Ask Bill Gates who has the upper hand -- big evil corporations or big evil government? One thing struck me as the Truth; years ago, I heard David Friedman (son of Milton Friedman) on C-SPAN's Booknotes remark that he was surprised that campaign contributions were so low, given the capability of the government to support or destroy an industry. To me, the ultimate campaign finance reform is to reduce the scope of government. Why contribute, if it will have little impact on your economic or personal life?
I'm really big on the concept of "ordered liberty." I thought Russell Kirk's The Roots of American Order was the bee's knees. I think that both you and I are on the same ideological page. I do see a purpose in the goverment in providing order so that liberty might flourish. But more important than the Braveheart theory is the Mayflower test (is it religious tyranny or freedom?).
I'm not in favor of establishing a theocracy. But in my eyes, those Puritans of the Mayflower were free. You can comment all you want about the deaths in the first winter (how's that for health?), about the hard work, about the lack of internet connectivity, those folks were free men. They ordered their society in the manner they desired. If there were some rocket ship blasting off to some isolated corner of the universe to colonize a planet a la Robert Heinlein's sci-fi novels, I'd be one of the first to sign up. It's not really the hardship that's so attractive about it.
I'm not sure if this is an accurate quotation, but this is close enough... Henry Ford said that "people can have the Model T in any color -- so long as it's black." Well, we can shape our community in any way we like, as long as it looks like San Francisco. Today, we fail the Mayflower test. Did this country pass the Mayflower test in it's history? I think it's arguable. We had the sin city of Las Vegas (or Reno), Nevada with legalized prostitution and gambling side by side with the Bible Belt and the puritanical "banned in Boston" New England. Why? I think it's arguable that it was then technologically impossible for the federal government to keep a tight reign over the republic [Technology is not the only reason, we are a tired democracy. It's not the low voter turnout in national elections that has me worried. It's the low voter turn out at town meetings that's worrisome.] Railroads and telegraphs brought everyone closer to the central government. That's why a rocket ship to an isolated part of the universe is so attactive. It's the isolation from central authority that's attractive. I want to transplant those autonomous, competing authorities and instititutions -- those things that we conservatives adore -- to some place where those fragile flowers can see the light of day, away from the towering pines of a central government.
Chesterton is very likely correct. Despotism is a development of civilization.
REF:
"Left v. State, Again | The conservative divide."
"Gibson's Revolution"
"Slippery Arguments | Why freedom ain't everything."
"The Libertarian Lie | Responding to Nick Gillespie and Virginia Postrel."
"Conservatism, Post-9/11"
SUBSIDIARITY, THE PRINCIPLE OF
SPHERE SOVEREIGNTY
The obvious angle is to point out the hypocrisy of hate crime laws -- as Dan did -- which are more correctly described as political incorrectness crime laws. The idea is to give special protection to politically correct groups.
I found this quote interesting:
"God loves gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people just the way they are," Rutt said. "The Bible is clear that homosexuality is not a sickness and not a sin."
At first I thought that the second sentence is a bold-faced lie. Then I thought that maybe this is some sort lawyerly trick. Perhaps they mean that being homosexual is okay but the homosexual act is prohibited. A look at the definition of homosexuality shows that the word is too ambiguous to be used in this sense:
My first instinct was correct. Rutt told an untruth. Did she ever open up a Bible? Probably not, otherwise she would be forced to modify her statements.
"I'm a liberal Democrat, but I'm a conservative Catholic — put that into the mix."
Oh, I guess she's pro-life and believes that sex outside of marriage is just plain wrong. Yeah, right.
Here's Bob's Link-O-Rama (tm)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51497-2002Nov13.html
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/prchoice4-26-01.htm
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/flru-4867-10-00.HTM
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/flpartialbirth.htm
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/prplanparent.htm
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/consent.htm
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/embryo.htm
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2001Mar/mar11hh.htm
http://www.sffaith.com/ed/news/0997news.htm
15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
16 He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."
17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep."
Hey. It's not fair of blogger to lose the template thingy. Blogger is so gone.
It looks like I'm going to restart this web logging thingy, but I've decided to give up blogger and move to some sort of web diary. Expect infrequent postings until I overhaul the system (by the way, I'm writing to my only reader... the mouse in my pocket).