Sunday, July 11, 2010
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Ramesh Ponnuru
Ramesh Ponnuru
About | Archive | E-mail | Latest
June 2, 2010 4:00 A.M.
The Immigration Impasse
From the June 7, 2010, issue of NR.
The new Arizona law against illegal immigration has brought to the surface an intraconservative division that has not been in public view since the failure of President Bush’s push for immigration legislation in 2006–07. Most conservatives, like most of the public, have supported the law, but the initial comments of several prominent conservatives — notably Karl Rove, Marco Rubio, and Jeb Bush — were hostile. Some conservative columnists and activists have also attacked the legislation.
The Right’s division on immigration cuts across the usual lines: There are social conservatives, hawks, and economic conservatives in each camp. The division goes deep: It reflects differences about not only what policies the government should adopt but the moral convictions that should underlie them and the political strategies that should accompany them. One thing all of these camps share, however, is a lack of political realism.
One group of conservatives supports “comprehensive immigration reform” of the type that Bush sought. These conservatives — allied with most libertarians and liberals, ethnic lobbies, and business groups — believe that we have so much illegal immigration because we do not allow enough legal immigration to meet the economy’s needs. Their solution is a “temporary worker program” that would allow people to participate in America’s labor markets for a while and then require them to go home.
They also think that we should bring much of our existing illegal-immigrant population “out of the shadows” by creating a “path to citizenship” for those who learn English and meet other conditions. Enforcing the laws against new illegal entrants would then, they think, become a manageable task. They believe that the growth of the Hispanic vote makes support for this three-step plan — temporary work, a path to citizenship, and enforcement — politically necessary. Opposition, by antagonizing Hispanics, would make it impossible to create an enduring conservative majority. But if Hispanics did not suspect that Republicans were hostile to them, their work ethic and social conservatism would make them natural allies.
A second group of conservatives, which includes most House Republicans, calls the proposal for a path to citizenship an amnesty and rejects it as a reward for lawbreaking and an invitation for future illegal entrants. These conservatives believe that we should reduce the illegal-immigrant population by increasing our enforcement of immigration rules in the workplace and building a fence along the southern border. “Attrition through enforcement” is their motto. Some people in this group want the government to stop automatically granting citizenship to children born in the U.S. to illegal-immigrant parents. Many in this group also say they support legal immigration.
People in this second group tend to care less about the political ramifications of these policies than people in the first group, in part because to many of them immigration policy is more important than the future of the Republican party. But those who do wish the GOP well argue forcefully that support for amnesty would not help it. They claim that amnesty would instead enrage the party’s base and alienate some swing voters (notably working-class whites) while failing to win over Hispanics. On their view Hispanics, and particularly recent Hispanic immigrants, incline to the left because of a wide range of issues beyond immigration policy: They favor a high degree of government activism in the economy, for example, because of their relatively low incomes and education levels. Besides, amnesty critics add, many Hispanics themselves oppose illegal immigration.
A third group of conservatives sides with the second against the first, but goes further than either in wanting to see legal immigration reduced and changed as well. They fear that we are taking in more newcomers than we can absorb, especially given that so many of those newcomers are from the same place and that place is right next door. From their perspective our immigration policies import social problems — and Democratic voters. This group has few elected champions, but it does have some advocacy groups and think tanks on its side, such as the Center for Immigration Studies, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, and NumbersUSA.
It also has potentially broad popular support. Gallup’s most recent poll on the question found 50 percent of the public favoring decreased levels of immigration, compared with 32 percent who wanted to keep current levels and 14 percent who wanted more. According to Gallup, the decreasers have been the largest bloc of opinion for almost the entirety of the last 35 years, and only a small minority of Americans has ever wanted higher immigration levels.
A characteristic flaw of the first group is naïveté. Supporters of “comprehensive reform” rarely explain how a temporary work program would be kept temporary. If temporary workers have children while on their U.S. sojourn, the federal government will have the unpalatable choice of breaking up the family, deporting children who are U.S. citizens, or winking at lawbreaking.
That comprehensivists might not have the stomach to enforce their own legal regime is an implication of the ferocious reaction to Arizona’s new law against illegal immigration. Many of the comprehensivist critics of that law, on the right as well as the left, have treated the demand that people here legally produce evidence proving it as intolerably oppressive and even fascistic. This type of criticism is incompatible with enforcement of immigration laws, period.
This squeamishness, along with the federal government’s track record on enforcement, is one reason that people who might otherwise be open to a path to citizenship think it would be a fiasco in practice. Without effective enforcement, more illegal entrants would come and wait until the next amnesty/offer of a path to citizenship. In any case, the comprehensivists’ political strategy underestimates the size and intensity of the opposition to their policy agenda, at least in today’s circumstances. Republicans cannot take the lead in enacting a policy that their rank-and-file members vehemently reject; and if the policy is enacted by Democrats, they and not Republicans will get the credit with Hispanics — whose natural conservatism is overestimated by comprehensivists on the right in the first place.
Indeed, the eagerness of conservative comprehensivists to create a large temporary labor force excluded from voting suggests that they themselves have some doubts about the latent conservative proclivities of low-skilled Hispanic immigrants. Liberal comprehensivists generally favor the temporary-work program only as a sop to their conservative allies; they would prefer a straightforward increase in legal immigration.
Finally, the argument that illegal immigration is the inevitable result of an undersupply of legal-immigrant labor is far more radical in its implications than the comprehensivists admit or, perhaps, realize. The demand for labor, like the demand for almost anything else, varies inversely with the price. So long as wage levels are significantly higher in the U.S. than in Mexico, immigrants will have an incentive to come here and employers will often find it in their interest to hire them. The argument, that is, pushes in the direction not just of higher legal immigration but of an integrated North American labor market. It is unlikely that Americans would favor that goal if it were put to a vote.
Yet the political dilemma is even sharper for the second two groups. The enactment of the comprehensivists’ agenda might weaken the Right politically by giving votes to more immigrants who are predisposed against it, but at least the policy could survive this effect. Many comprehensivists — the liberals among them — would be happy about this effect. But the second and third groups are found almost entirely on the Right. If their agenda weakens conservatives politically, that agenda will quickly be repealed or, more likely, not be enacted in the first place.
And building a sustainable majority for that agenda may be impossible. Republican opposition to amnesty and support for “enforcement only” appears to have cost the party some Hispanic support, and as a result at least some congressional races. Many conservatives overestimate how hostile the public at large is to an amnesty. The conservative group Resurgent Republic recently asked likely voters if they agreed that illegal immigrants should be allowed to earn citizenship or that creating a path to citizenship would be a mistake as a “reward for illegal behavior.” A 54 percent majority favored the path to citizenship. A campaign against the children of illegal immigrants — which is what a frontal attack on the principle of birthright citizenship would involve — is unlikely to garner more support for the restrictionists.
A recent Gallup poll found 64 percent of respondents either “very” or “somewhat” sympathetic to illegal immigrants. That finding suggests that at the very least the advocates of “enforcement only” ought to adjust their rhetoric, which has not reflected this sympathy and indeed has hardly even acknowledged its existence.
Perhaps all three camps should reconsider their positions as well. Amnesty has become the most polarizing issue in the immigration debate; supporters and opponents cannot even agree what to call it. For the supporters, providing a measure of legal security to poor and desperate people whom our society has tacitly invited here is a moral imperative. For the opponents, rewarding their lawbreaking is an injustice.
Neither of these competing claims is compelling. Illegal immigrants voluntarily came here amid shadows; bringing them out cannot be obligatory for the U.S. government regardless of the consequences. And while illegal immigrants’ lawbreaking is wrong, it is not a grave wrong. To the extent they acted to help their families there is something admirable in their actions. If there are circumstances in which amnesty would otherwise serve the country’s interest, we should not forswear it for fear of rewarding lawbreaking. Imposing a fine on illegal immigrants — and perhaps, as centrist immigration scholar Peter Skerry has suggested, permanently disqualifying them from citizenship — seems proportionate to the offense.
But now is not the time for that policy. Enacting a law that puts amnesty into effect, even if implementation of the amnesty is delayed for a few years, would attract more illegal immigration. If the pro-amnesty conservatives need to accept that it would be unwise to push for amnesty now, the anti-amnesty conservatives ought to entertain the possibility that at some point it would make sense.
Some thoughtful conservative restrictionists concede that once the illegal-immigrant population is shrunk to a manageable level, some path to legality could be put in place. But even they warn that openly discussing this possibility could act as a magnet. That risk seems small enough to be worth taking — especially if the alternative is a total opposition to amnesty that proves politically self-defeating.
Stepping up enforcement while deferring the question of amnesty is not a perfect solution to the dilemmas created by current immigration policy. It does not open the door to a reform of legal immigration, for example. But it would promote the most important goal of that reform, assimilation, by reducing the total inflow from Mexico. It would not end Hispanics’ objections to a policy that subjects illegal immigrants who have been here for years to the threat of deportation for an indefinite time period; but it might slightly soften those objections and make it easier to show that the policy is not based on racial hostility. And it would do justice to the public’s conflicting impulses.
The debate over amnesty has sometimes obscured the more important question of whom, and how many, we should let in. Amnesty is itself important primarily as it bears on that question. Conservatives, like others, have dug-in positions, with a few saying we need to pass a law that includes a path to citizenship at the same time we step up enforcement and many more saying we should not do it at all. The right time for amnesty is in between now and never.
— Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor of National Review, in whose Jun 7, 2010, issue this article first appeared.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
sb
The Scoop: On a sunny summer evening, there’s no place we’d rather be than right here on this Oakhurst sidewalk patio, with a pint of Guinness in one hand, a plate of delicious food in front of us, and - depending on the night - a live jazz band playing in between their own beers. Of course, it’s just as nice posting up inside, chatting up the friendly Irish tender behind the bar. The only people around Steinbeck’s who don’t seem to be having the best time of their lives are those folks walking by, looking in, and wishing they could be here... having a pint with you and your friends.
Scout Notes: You know how bakeries entice passersby with the luring aroma of fresh bread out of the oven? Well, at Steinbeck’s, they use a similar tactic. Only instead of baked goods, they use the sound of cheery people out on their patio, laughing, clinking their glasses, all having a merry old time. On the night I happened to be one of those folks walking by on this cutesy Oakhurst corner, there was a quintet of musicians all literally beckoning me and my camera in for a beer and some jazz music they were about to share after they finished their beers and a few goofy poses for my camera. How could I refuse?
Inside, the atmosphere is just as friendly. It’s cozy, with exposed brick walls and tall windows, a dark wood bar that looks like it may have been imported straight from Ireland along with the Irish man behind the bar, Jimmy. He offers up a changing menu of beers on tap (though, he notes, Guinness will never ever go anywhere). His chef, Andy Gonzalez, whips up an authentic and hearty menu centered on quality fresh, seasonal ingredients. Gonzalez came to Steinbeck’s with kitchen experience as the Sous Chef at Bluepointe and Nava, the Chef de Cuisine at South City Kitchen and the Executive Sous Chef at Spice Market. So you know he’s got quite a good thing going here. Pub fare like Blue Cheese Fries with Bacon, Brisket Tacos, a Pimiento Cheese & Bacon Burger with Pickled Jalapenos and old favorites like a BLT with Duke’s mayo and a Chopped Pork Sammy with vine ripe tomatoes make this a little more upscale than your average neighborhood pub. And if you’re a fan of beer in the morning (or just of food and drink in general), you can always head to Steinbeck’s for a brunch of Brisket Hash or Creme Brulee French Toast. It all washes down so well with that draft ale. And when all the thirsty pedestrians in Oakhurst are looking in and wishing they were you, it somehow manages to make everything taste even better.
The Scoop: On a sunny summer evening, there’s no place we’d rather be than right here on this Oakhurst sidewalk patio, with a pint of Guinness in one hand, a plate of delicious food in front of us, and - depending on the night - a live jazz band playing in between their own beers. Of course, it’s just as nice posting up inside, chatting up the friendly Irish tender behind the bar. The only people around Steinbeck’s who don’t seem to be having the best time of their lives are those folks walking by, looking in, and wishing they could be here... having a pint with you and your friends.
Scout Notes: You know how bakeries entice passersby with the luring aroma of fresh bread out of the oven? Well, at Steinbeck’s, they use a similar tactic. Only instead of baked goods, they use the sound of cheery people out on their patio, laughing, clinking their glasses, all having a merry old time. On the night I happened to be one of those folks walking by on this cutesy Oakhurst corner, there was a quintet of musicians all literally beckoning me and my camera in for a beer and some jazz music they were about to share after they finished their beers and a few goofy poses for my camera. How could I refuse?
Inside, the atmosphere is just as friendly. It’s cozy, with exposed brick walls and tall windows, a dark wood bar that looks like it may have been imported straight from Ireland along with the Irish man behind the bar, Jimmy. He offers up a changing menu of beers on tap (though, he notes, Guinness will never ever go anywhere). His chef, Andy Gonzalez, whips up an authentic and hearty menu centered on quality fresh, seasonal ingredients. Gonzalez came to Steinbeck’s with kitchen experience as the Sous Chef at Bluepointe and Nava, the Chef de Cuisine at South City Kitchen and the Executive Sous Chef at Spice Market. So you know he’s got quite a good thing going here. Pub fare like Blue Cheese Fries with Bacon, Brisket Tacos, a Pimiento Cheese & Bacon Burger with Pickled Jalapenos and old favorites like a BLT with Duke’s mayo and a Chopped Pork Sammy with vine ripe tomatoes make this a little more upscale than your average neighborhood pub. And if you’re a fan of beer in the morning (or just of food and drink in general), you can always head to Steinbeck’s for a brunch of Brisket Hash or Creme Brulee French Toast. It all washes down so well with that draft ale. And when all the thirsty pedestrians in Oakhurst are looking in and wishing they were you, it somehow manages to make everything taste even better.
The Scoop: On a sunny summer evening, there’s no place we’d rather be than right here on this Oakhurst sidewalk patio, with a pint of Guinness in one hand, a plate of delicious food in front of us, and - depending on the night - a live jazz band playing in between their own beers. Of course, it’s just as nice posting up inside, chatting up the friendly Irish tender behind the bar. The only people around Steinbeck’s who don’t seem to be having the best time of their lives are those folks walking by, looking in, and wishing they could be here... having a pint with you and your friends.
Scout Notes: You know how bakeries entice passersby with the luring aroma of fresh bread out of the oven? Well, at Steinbeck’s, they use a similar tactic. Only instead of baked goods, they use the sound of cheery people out on their patio, laughing, clinking their glasses, all having a merry old time. On the night I happened to be one of those folks walking by on this cutesy Oakhurst corner, there was a quintet of musicians all literally beckoning me and my camera in for a beer and some jazz music they were about to share after they finished their beers and a few goofy poses for my camera. How could I refuse?
Inside, the atmosphere is just as friendly. It’s cozy, with exposed brick walls and tall windows, a dark wood bar that looks like it may have been imported straight from Ireland along with the Irish man behind the bar, Jimmy. He offers up a changing menu of beers on tap (though, he notes, Guinness will never ever go anywhere). His chef, Andy Gonzalez, whips up an authentic and hearty menu centered on quality fresh, seasonal ingredients. Gonzalez came to Steinbeck’s with kitchen experience as the Sous Chef at Bluepointe and Nava, the Chef de Cuisine at South City Kitchen and the Executive Sous Chef at Spice Market. So you know he’s got quite a good thing going here. Pub fare like Blue Cheese Fries with Bacon, Brisket Tacos, a Pimiento Cheese & Bacon Burger with Pickled Jalapenos and old favorites like a BLT with Duke’s mayo and a Chopped Pork Sammy with vine ripe tomatoes make this a little more upscale than your average neighborhood pub. And if you’re a fan of beer in the morning (or just of food and drink in general), you can always head to Steinbeck’s for a brunch of Brisket Hash or Creme Brulee French Toast. It all washes down so well with that draft ale. And when all the thirsty pedestrians in Oakhurst are looking in and wishing they were you, it somehow manages to make everything taste even better.
Scout Notes: You know how bakeries entice passersby with the luring aroma of fresh bread out of the oven? Well, at Steinbeck’s, they use a similar tactic. Only instead of baked goods, they use the sound of cheery people out on their patio, laughing, clinking their glasses, all having a merry old time. On the night I happened to be one of those folks walking by on this cutesy Oakhurst corner, there was a quintet of musicians all literally beckoning me and my camera in for a beer and some jazz music they were about to share after they finished their beers and a few goofy poses for my camera. How could I refuse?
Inside, the atmosphere is just as friendly. It’s cozy, with exposed brick walls and tall windows, a dark wood bar that looks like it may have been imported straight from Ireland along with the Irish man behind the bar, Jimmy. He offers up a changing menu of beers on tap (though, he notes, Guinness will never ever go anywhere). His chef, Andy Gonzalez, whips up an authentic and hearty menu centered on quality fresh, seasonal ingredients. Gonzalez came to Steinbeck’s with kitchen experience as the Sous Chef at Bluepointe and Nava, the Chef de Cuisine at South City Kitchen and the Executive Sous Chef at Spice Market. So you know he’s got quite a good thing going here. Pub fare like Blue Cheese Fries with Bacon, Brisket Tacos, a Pimiento Cheese & Bacon Burger with Pickled Jalapenos and old favorites like a BLT with Duke’s mayo and a Chopped Pork Sammy with vine ripe tomatoes make this a little more upscale than your average neighborhood pub. And if you’re a fan of beer in the morning (or just of food and drink in general), you can always head to Steinbeck’s for a brunch of Brisket Hash or Creme Brulee French Toast. It all washes down so well with that draft ale. And when all the thirsty pedestrians in Oakhurst are looking in and wishing they were you, it somehow manages to make everything taste even better.
The Scoop: On a sunny summer evening, there’s no place we’d rather be than right here on this Oakhurst sidewalk patio, with a pint of Guinness in one hand, a plate of delicious food in front of us, and - depending on the night - a live jazz band playing in between their own beers. Of course, it’s just as nice posting up inside, chatting up the friendly Irish tender behind the bar. The only people around Steinbeck’s who don’t seem to be having the best time of their lives are those folks walking by, looking in, and wishing they could be here... having a pint with you and your friends.
Scout Notes: You know how bakeries entice passersby with the luring aroma of fresh bread out of the oven? Well, at Steinbeck’s, they use a similar tactic. Only instead of baked goods, they use the sound of cheery people out on their patio, laughing, clinking their glasses, all having a merry old time. On the night I happened to be one of those folks walking by on this cutesy Oakhurst corner, there was a quintet of musicians all literally beckoning me and my camera in for a beer and some jazz music they were about to share after they finished their beers and a few goofy poses for my camera. How could I refuse?
Inside, the atmosphere is just as friendly. It’s cozy, with exposed brick walls and tall windows, a dark wood bar that looks like it may have been imported straight from Ireland along with the Irish man behind the bar, Jimmy. He offers up a changing menu of beers on tap (though, he notes, Guinness will never ever go anywhere). His chef, Andy Gonzalez, whips up an authentic and hearty menu centered on quality fresh, seasonal ingredients. Gonzalez came to Steinbeck’s with kitchen experience as the Sous Chef at Bluepointe and Nava, the Chef de Cuisine at South City Kitchen and the Executive Sous Chef at Spice Market. So you know he’s got quite a good thing going here. Pub fare like Blue Cheese Fries with Bacon, Brisket Tacos, a Pimiento Cheese & Bacon Burger with Pickled Jalapenos and old favorites like a BLT with Duke’s mayo and a Chopped Pork Sammy with vine ripe tomatoes make this a little more upscale than your average neighborhood pub. And if you’re a fan of beer in the morning (or just of food and drink in general), you can always head to Steinbeck’s for a brunch of Brisket Hash or Creme Brulee French Toast. It all washes down so well with that draft ale. And when all the thirsty pedestrians in Oakhurst are looking in and wishing they were you, it somehow manages to make everything taste even better.
The Scoop: On a sunny summer evening, there’s no place we’d rather be than right here on this Oakhurst sidewalk patio, with a pint of Guinness in one hand, a plate of delicious food in front of us, and - depending on the night - a live jazz band playing in between their own beers. Of course, it’s just as nice posting up inside, chatting up the friendly Irish tender behind the bar. The only people around Steinbeck’s who don’t seem to be having the best time of their lives are those folks walking by, looking in, and wishing they could be here... having a pint with you and your friends.
Scout Notes: You know how bakeries entice passersby with the luring aroma of fresh bread out of the oven? Well, at Steinbeck’s, they use a similar tactic. Only instead of baked goods, they use the sound of cheery people out on their patio, laughing, clinking their glasses, all having a merry old time. On the night I happened to be one of those folks walking by on this cutesy Oakhurst corner, there was a quintet of musicians all literally beckoning me and my camera in for a beer and some jazz music they were about to share after they finished their beers and a few goofy poses for my camera. How could I refuse?
Inside, the atmosphere is just as friendly. It’s cozy, with exposed brick walls and tall windows, a dark wood bar that looks like it may have been imported straight from Ireland along with the Irish man behind the bar, Jimmy. He offers up a changing menu of beers on tap (though, he notes, Guinness will never ever go anywhere). His chef, Andy Gonzalez, whips up an authentic and hearty menu centered on quality fresh, seasonal ingredients. Gonzalez came to Steinbeck’s with kitchen experience as the Sous Chef at Bluepointe and Nava, the Chef de Cuisine at South City Kitchen and the Executive Sous Chef at Spice Market. So you know he’s got quite a good thing going here. Pub fare like Blue Cheese Fries with Bacon, Brisket Tacos, a Pimiento Cheese & Bacon Burger with Pickled Jalapenos and old favorites like a BLT with Duke’s mayo and a Chopped Pork Sammy with vine ripe tomatoes make this a little more upscale than your average neighborhood pub. And if you’re a fan of beer in the morning (or just of food and drink in general), you can always head to Steinbeck’s for a brunch of Brisket Hash or Creme Brulee French Toast. It all washes down so well with that draft ale. And when all the thirsty pedestrians in Oakhurst are looking in and wishing they were you, it somehow manages to make everything taste even better.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
My Country, Tis of Me
The right-wing populist Tea Party movement has politicians of both parties spooked. Democrats fear it will bring so many Republicans to the boil, and then to the voting booth, that they will lose control of Congress. Republicans fear the movement will frighten away moderates and leave their party an unelectable, ideologically extreme rump. The press, both alarmed and delighted by this political force that sprang from nowhere, is eager to prove its lack of elitism and left-wing bias by treating the Tea Party activists with respect. Journalists also sincerely appreciate having something new to write or talk about. It is in their interest to keep this story going.
A Harris poll released the last day of March reported that a third of all adults support the Tea Party, and slightly less than a quarter oppose it. Do they know what they are supporting, or opposing? The movement is not yet united on a single platform or agenda, like Newt Gingrich’s 1994 Contract With America, which started as a triumph and ended as an embarrassment. The lack of specifics allows anyone who is just existentially fed up (and who isn’t, on some days?) to feel right at home. No one will demand to know what he or she is fed up with. On Web sites and in speeches, Tea Party Patriots reveal a fondness for procedural gimmicks (like a ban on congressional earmarks), constitutional amendments (term limits, balanced budget), and similar magic tricks or shortcuts to salvation. Apart from a general funk, though, the one common theme espoused by TPPs is the monstrous danger of Big Government.
The Tea Party movement has been compared (by David Brooks of The New York Times, among others) to the student protest movement of the 1960s. Even though one came from the left and the other from the right, both are/were, or at least styled themselves as, a mass challenge to an oppressive establishment. That’s a similarity, to be sure. But the differences seem more illuminating.
First, the 1960s (shorthand for all of the political and social developments we associate with that period) were by, for, and about young people. The Tea Party movement is by, for, and about middle-aged and old people (undoubtedly including more than a few who were part of the earlier movement too). If young people discover a cause and become a bit overwrought or monomaniacal, that’s easily forgiven as part of the charm of youth. When adults of middle age and older throw tantrums and hold their breath until they turn blue, it’s less charming.
Second, although the 1960s ultimately spread their tentacles throughout the culture and around the world, politically there was just one big issue: ending the war in Vietnam. No such issue unites the Tea Party Patriots. You might guess from some of their materials on the Web that the repeal of health-care reform is the TPPs’ Vietnam, their towering cause. But even for devoted TPPs, stripping health insurance away from people who’ve just gotten it is unlikely to summon the same passions that the activists of the 1960s brought to stopping a misguided war. Not only do TPPs not have one big issue like Vietnam—they disagree about many of their smaller issues. What unites them is a more abstract resentment, an intensity of feeling rather than any concrete complaint or goal.
The antiwar movement also worked, sort of. As did the civil-rights movement that preceded it. Antiwar protests ultimately turned the establishment itself against the war, though extracting us from it still took years. By contrast, the Tea Party Patriots, I predict, are just the flavor of the month: the kind of story that the media are incapable of not exaggerating. The antiwar movement and the 1960s changed America in numerous ways forever. The Tea Party Patriots will be an answer on Jeopardy or a crossword-puzzle clue.
A final difference: although the 1960s featured plenty of self-indulgence, this wasn’t their essence. Their essence was selfless and idealistic: stopping the war; ending racism; eradicating poverty. These goals and some of the methods for achieving them may have been childishly romantic or even entirely wrongheaded, but they were about making the world a better place. The Tea Party movement’s goals, when stated specifically, are mostly self-interested. And they lack poetry: cut my taxes; don’t let the government mess with my Medicare; and so on. I say “self-interested” and not “selfish” because pursuing your own self-interest is not illegitimate in a capitalist democracy. (Nor is poetry an essential requirement.) But the Tea Party’s atmospherics, all about personal grievance and taking umbrage and feeling put-upon, are a far cry from flower power. There is a nasty, sour, vindictive tone to the Tea Party that certainly existed in the antiwar movement and its offspring, but never dominated the atmosphere created by these groups.
Some people think that what unites the Tea Party Patriots is simple racism. I doubt that. But the Tea Party movement is not the solution to what ails America. It is an illustration of what ails America. Not because it is right-wing or because it is sometimes susceptible to crazed conspiracy theories, and not because of racism, but because of the movement’s self-indulgent premise that none of our challenges and difficulties are our own fault.
“Personal responsibility” has been a great conservative theme in recent decades, in response to the growth of the welfare state. It is a common theme among TPPs—even in response to health-care reform, as if losing your job and then getting cancer is something you shouldn’t have allowed to happen to yourself. But these days, conservatives far outdo liberals in excusing citizens from personal responsibility. To the TPPs, all of our problems are the fault of the government, and the government is a great “other,” a hideous monster over which we have no control. It spends our money and runs up vast deficits for mysterious reasons all its own. At bottom, this is a suspicion not of government but of democracy. After all, who elected this monster?
This kind of talk is doubly self-indulgent. First, it’s just not true. Second, it’s obviously untrue. The government’s main function these days is writing checks to old people. These checks allow people to retire and pursue avocations such as going to Tea Party rallies. This basic fact about the government is no great secret. In fact, it’s a huge cliché, robably available more than once in an average day’s newspaper. But the Tea Party Patriots feel free to ignore it and continue serving up rhetoric about “the audaciousness and arrogance of our government,” and calling for the elimination of the Federal Reserve Board or drastic restraints on the power of the Internal Revenue Service.
“I like what they’re saying. It’s common sense,” a random man-in-the-crowd told a Los Angeles Times reporter at a big Tea Party rally. Then he added, “They’ve got to focus on issues like keeping jobs here and lowering the cost of prescription drugs.” These, of course, are projects that can be conducted only by Big Government. If the Tea Party Patriots ever developed a coherent platform or agenda, they would lose half their supporters.
Principled libertarianism is an interesting and even tempting idea. If we wanted to, we could radically reduce the scope of government—defend the country, give poor people enough money to live decently, and leave it at that. But this isn’t the TPP vision. The TPP vision is that you can keep your Medicare benefits and balance the budget by ending congressional earmarks, and perhaps the National Endowment for the Arts.
What is most irksome about the Tea Party Patriots is their expropriation of the word patriot, with the implication that if you disagree with them, you’re not a patriot, or at least you’re less patriotic than they are. Without getting all ask-notty about it, I think a movement labeling itself patriotic should have some obligation to demonstrate patriotism in a way other than demanding a tax cut. In their rhetoric, the Tea Party Patriots do not sound as if they love their country very much: they have nothing but gripes. Yes, of course, these are gripes against the government, not against the country itself. But that distinction becomes hard to maintain when you have nothing good to say about the government and nothing but whines to offer the country.
Times are tough, and some sympathy is due. Still, times have always been tough for many folks for one reason or another, and people didn’t always resort so quickly to all-purpose bellyaching, did they?
A Harris poll released the last day of March reported that a third of all adults support the Tea Party, and slightly less than a quarter oppose it. Do they know what they are supporting, or opposing? The movement is not yet united on a single platform or agenda, like Newt Gingrich’s 1994 Contract With America, which started as a triumph and ended as an embarrassment. The lack of specifics allows anyone who is just existentially fed up (and who isn’t, on some days?) to feel right at home. No one will demand to know what he or she is fed up with. On Web sites and in speeches, Tea Party Patriots reveal a fondness for procedural gimmicks (like a ban on congressional earmarks), constitutional amendments (term limits, balanced budget), and similar magic tricks or shortcuts to salvation. Apart from a general funk, though, the one common theme espoused by TPPs is the monstrous danger of Big Government.
The Tea Party movement has been compared (by David Brooks of The New York Times, among others) to the student protest movement of the 1960s. Even though one came from the left and the other from the right, both are/were, or at least styled themselves as, a mass challenge to an oppressive establishment. That’s a similarity, to be sure. But the differences seem more illuminating.
First, the 1960s (shorthand for all of the political and social developments we associate with that period) were by, for, and about young people. The Tea Party movement is by, for, and about middle-aged and old people (undoubtedly including more than a few who were part of the earlier movement too). If young people discover a cause and become a bit overwrought or monomaniacal, that’s easily forgiven as part of the charm of youth. When adults of middle age and older throw tantrums and hold their breath until they turn blue, it’s less charming.
Second, although the 1960s ultimately spread their tentacles throughout the culture and around the world, politically there was just one big issue: ending the war in Vietnam. No such issue unites the Tea Party Patriots. You might guess from some of their materials on the Web that the repeal of health-care reform is the TPPs’ Vietnam, their towering cause. But even for devoted TPPs, stripping health insurance away from people who’ve just gotten it is unlikely to summon the same passions that the activists of the 1960s brought to stopping a misguided war. Not only do TPPs not have one big issue like Vietnam—they disagree about many of their smaller issues. What unites them is a more abstract resentment, an intensity of feeling rather than any concrete complaint or goal.
The antiwar movement also worked, sort of. As did the civil-rights movement that preceded it. Antiwar protests ultimately turned the establishment itself against the war, though extracting us from it still took years. By contrast, the Tea Party Patriots, I predict, are just the flavor of the month: the kind of story that the media are incapable of not exaggerating. The antiwar movement and the 1960s changed America in numerous ways forever. The Tea Party Patriots will be an answer on Jeopardy or a crossword-puzzle clue.
A final difference: although the 1960s featured plenty of self-indulgence, this wasn’t their essence. Their essence was selfless and idealistic: stopping the war; ending racism; eradicating poverty. These goals and some of the methods for achieving them may have been childishly romantic or even entirely wrongheaded, but they were about making the world a better place. The Tea Party movement’s goals, when stated specifically, are mostly self-interested. And they lack poetry: cut my taxes; don’t let the government mess with my Medicare; and so on. I say “self-interested” and not “selfish” because pursuing your own self-interest is not illegitimate in a capitalist democracy. (Nor is poetry an essential requirement.) But the Tea Party’s atmospherics, all about personal grievance and taking umbrage and feeling put-upon, are a far cry from flower power. There is a nasty, sour, vindictive tone to the Tea Party that certainly existed in the antiwar movement and its offspring, but never dominated the atmosphere created by these groups.
Some people think that what unites the Tea Party Patriots is simple racism. I doubt that. But the Tea Party movement is not the solution to what ails America. It is an illustration of what ails America. Not because it is right-wing or because it is sometimes susceptible to crazed conspiracy theories, and not because of racism, but because of the movement’s self-indulgent premise that none of our challenges and difficulties are our own fault.
“Personal responsibility” has been a great conservative theme in recent decades, in response to the growth of the welfare state. It is a common theme among TPPs—even in response to health-care reform, as if losing your job and then getting cancer is something you shouldn’t have allowed to happen to yourself. But these days, conservatives far outdo liberals in excusing citizens from personal responsibility. To the TPPs, all of our problems are the fault of the government, and the government is a great “other,” a hideous monster over which we have no control. It spends our money and runs up vast deficits for mysterious reasons all its own. At bottom, this is a suspicion not of government but of democracy. After all, who elected this monster?
This kind of talk is doubly self-indulgent. First, it’s just not true. Second, it’s obviously untrue. The government’s main function these days is writing checks to old people. These checks allow people to retire and pursue avocations such as going to Tea Party rallies. This basic fact about the government is no great secret. In fact, it’s a huge cliché, robably available more than once in an average day’s newspaper. But the Tea Party Patriots feel free to ignore it and continue serving up rhetoric about “the audaciousness and arrogance of our government,” and calling for the elimination of the Federal Reserve Board or drastic restraints on the power of the Internal Revenue Service.
“I like what they’re saying. It’s common sense,” a random man-in-the-crowd told a Los Angeles Times reporter at a big Tea Party rally. Then he added, “They’ve got to focus on issues like keeping jobs here and lowering the cost of prescription drugs.” These, of course, are projects that can be conducted only by Big Government. If the Tea Party Patriots ever developed a coherent platform or agenda, they would lose half their supporters.
Principled libertarianism is an interesting and even tempting idea. If we wanted to, we could radically reduce the scope of government—defend the country, give poor people enough money to live decently, and leave it at that. But this isn’t the TPP vision. The TPP vision is that you can keep your Medicare benefits and balance the budget by ending congressional earmarks, and perhaps the National Endowment for the Arts.
What is most irksome about the Tea Party Patriots is their expropriation of the word patriot, with the implication that if you disagree with them, you’re not a patriot, or at least you’re less patriotic than they are. Without getting all ask-notty about it, I think a movement labeling itself patriotic should have some obligation to demonstrate patriotism in a way other than demanding a tax cut. In their rhetoric, the Tea Party Patriots do not sound as if they love their country very much: they have nothing but gripes. Yes, of course, these are gripes against the government, not against the country itself. But that distinction becomes hard to maintain when you have nothing good to say about the government and nothing but whines to offer the country.
Times are tough, and some sympathy is due. Still, times have always been tough for many folks for one reason or another, and people didn’t always resort so quickly to all-purpose bellyaching, did they?
Monday, May 10, 2010
Did I own this guitar?
"Silvertone electric guitar 21-fret, 3 way pickup, Soft carrying case, assortment of picks, replacement strings and guitar tuner.
$100 cash only."
Many years ago, I had a guitar very similar. I sawed off the headstock to make it look like a cool 'heavy metal' guitar. When anyone who knew about guitars saw it, they just shook thier heads.
Then I come across this ad on CL. Look at the headstock: it looks like the same guitar!
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Here we go again
DETROIT (AP) - A federal judge challenged prosecutors Wednesday to show that nine members of a Michigan militia accused of plotting war against the government had done more than just talk and should remain locked up.
U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts heard nearly 10 hours of testimony and arguments over two days. She did not make a decision about whether the nine will remain in custody, saying only that a ruling would come soon.
The members of a southern Michigan group called Hutaree have been in custody for a month. An indictment accuses them of weapons violations and a rare crime: conspiring to commit sedition, or rebellion, against the government by first killing police officers.
Prosecutors say the public would be at risk if the nine are released. But defense lawyers claim the government has overreached with a criminal case based mostly on hateful speech.
An undercover agent infiltrated the group and secretly made recordings that have been played in court. While there is talk about killing police, it's not specific. In one conversation, there are many people talking over each other and laughing.
Roberts pressed that point more than once as Assistant U.S. Attorney Ronald Waterstreet argued in favor of keeping the nine in jail. The judge suggested she didn't hear or read in the transcripts any indication that violence was imminent.
"Mere presence where a crime may be planned is not a crime. ... How does this add up to seditious conspiracy?" Roberts said.
Waterstreet said the government is not required to show all its evidence at this early stage of the case. He referred to the words of militia leader David Stone, 44, of Clayton, Mich., who was recorded by the undercover agent while they drove to Kentucky earlier this year.
"It's now time to strike and take our nation back so that we may be free again from tyranny. Time is up," Waterstreet said, quoting a transcript.
Later, putting the transcript aside, the prosecutor said: "The theme is the brotherhood is the enemy - all law enforcement."
Defense lawyers urged the judge to look at each defendant individually. Although all are charged with conspiracy, they were not always together during critical meetings cited by the government.
"'What if' is not the standard. ... None of these words are an instruction to anyone to commit a crime," said Stone's attorney, William Swor, as held up a stack of transcripts.
Arthur Weiss, a lawyer for Thomas Piatek, 46, of Whiting, Ind., said disgust with the government as recorded by the undercover agent is similar to
what's said daily by radio and TV talk-show hosts Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.
"Millions of people" are talking about "taking our country back," Weiss said.
The judge also heard from relatives of some of the defendants who pledged to be responsible for them if they were released from jail. "
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100429/D9FCD8I00.html
Okay, if this isn't a clear cut attempt to collate neocon talk radio to militias ( same as in the 90's remember?) then I dont know what is. Note that the AP writer chose to include the quote from one of the lawyers. AP!!
That is the plan, friends. It's right there.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Dr Don's great thesis
The Declaration of Independence holds that rights are “self-evident.” However, it is the failure to grasp the true nature of rights which has brought this country to its current condition. It remained for the 20th-century philosopher Ayn Rand to explicitly identify rights as “moral principle(s) defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context.” Rights pertain only to “freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men. ... Rights impose no obligations on (others) except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating (your) rights.”
The source of all rights is the right to life, and its sole implementation is the right to property, the right to use the products of your efforts to sustain your life. The rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the rights to enjoy your life and use your property. Rights are an objectively necessary requirement of human life, principles which apply equally to all persons and at all times. In sum, rights are freedoms for rational beings to take the actions necessary to fulfill and enjoy their lives. Any alleged “right” which violates these rights is not a right, but an excuse for a crime.
The only way to violate individual rights is through the initiation of force. A person who initiates force against you is attempting to negate your means of survival by forcing you to act against your judgment as to what your life requires. The only moral use of force is in retaliation against those who initiate its use. The sole proper purpose of government is to protect its citizens’ rights by banning the initiation of force and placing its retaliatory use under objective control. The purpose of the U.S. Constitution was, and is, to establish and maintain the supremacy of individual rights over our society and our government.
Consider, by contrast, the congressman quoted by Batten: “We have a moral obligation today, tonight to make health care a right.” That person believes he has a duty to force the providers of health care to work. Only a slave has no choice in the work he does. If health care is considered a right, then someone must provide it, willing or not. If too few people choose the profession of health care to provide for everyone’s “rights,” how will the need be met? Will doctors be jailed for the “crime” of leaving medicine? Will students be drafted into medical schools? If so, what kind of doctors will result? A doctor in Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged” says, “A man who’s willing to work under compulsion is too dangerous a brute to entrust with a job in the stockyards,” let alone in an operating room.
The root of this evil is altruism, the perverse principle that “man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue, and value” (Rand). Thus, altruism negates individual rights. If one has no right to exist for one’s own sake, one has no rights whatsoever. The health-care measures passed may be touted as “good-faith efforts,” as Batten stated, but the “good faith” is solidly rooted in an evil premise.
Altruistic ideologues, such as those running our government, believe that the initiation of force to counteract selfishness is not only permitted, but obligatory. To a committed altruist, anyone who refuses to sacrifice, to serve others at his own cost, is harming those others by denying them their right to the product of his efforts.
It was altruism, not selfishness, that gave rise to the horrors of communism and fascism. Both systems, variants of collectivism, deny that individuals have any reason for existence other than to serve others and advocate stamping out self-interest as a moral imperative. By contrast, this country was founded by men who did not consider themselves sacrificial animals, servants or slaves to the state. By claiming that rights are unalienable, they held that rights exist whether or not anyone chooses to recognize them.
The source of all rights is the right to life, and its sole implementation is the right to property, the right to use the products of your efforts to sustain your life. The rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the rights to enjoy your life and use your property. Rights are an objectively necessary requirement of human life, principles which apply equally to all persons and at all times. In sum, rights are freedoms for rational beings to take the actions necessary to fulfill and enjoy their lives. Any alleged “right” which violates these rights is not a right, but an excuse for a crime.
The only way to violate individual rights is through the initiation of force. A person who initiates force against you is attempting to negate your means of survival by forcing you to act against your judgment as to what your life requires. The only moral use of force is in retaliation against those who initiate its use. The sole proper purpose of government is to protect its citizens’ rights by banning the initiation of force and placing its retaliatory use under objective control. The purpose of the U.S. Constitution was, and is, to establish and maintain the supremacy of individual rights over our society and our government.
Consider, by contrast, the congressman quoted by Batten: “We have a moral obligation today, tonight to make health care a right.” That person believes he has a duty to force the providers of health care to work. Only a slave has no choice in the work he does. If health care is considered a right, then someone must provide it, willing or not. If too few people choose the profession of health care to provide for everyone’s “rights,” how will the need be met? Will doctors be jailed for the “crime” of leaving medicine? Will students be drafted into medical schools? If so, what kind of doctors will result? A doctor in Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged” says, “A man who’s willing to work under compulsion is too dangerous a brute to entrust with a job in the stockyards,” let alone in an operating room.
The root of this evil is altruism, the perverse principle that “man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue, and value” (Rand). Thus, altruism negates individual rights. If one has no right to exist for one’s own sake, one has no rights whatsoever. The health-care measures passed may be touted as “good-faith efforts,” as Batten stated, but the “good faith” is solidly rooted in an evil premise.
Altruistic ideologues, such as those running our government, believe that the initiation of force to counteract selfishness is not only permitted, but obligatory. To a committed altruist, anyone who refuses to sacrifice, to serve others at his own cost, is harming those others by denying them their right to the product of his efforts.
It was altruism, not selfishness, that gave rise to the horrors of communism and fascism. Both systems, variants of collectivism, deny that individuals have any reason for existence other than to serve others and advocate stamping out self-interest as a moral imperative. By contrast, this country was founded by men who did not consider themselves sacrificial animals, servants or slaves to the state. By claiming that rights are unalienable, they held that rights exist whether or not anyone chooses to recognize them.
Friday, April 23, 2010
spare the rod
From press reports
A new media study among 1,378 Americans revealed that among political parties, more Republicans (73%) reported spanking their children compared to Democrats (60%) and Independents (61%).
In addition, a slightly higher number of Republicans (89%) reported being spanked as a child compared to Democrats (87%) and Independents (86%). Despite recent study findings, the vast majority of Republicans (78%) did not think that spanking may cause aggression in children, while fewer Democrats (58%) disagreed with the findings.
Among the findings:
Have you ever spanked your child or children?
Democrat: 60 percent, yes; 40 percent, no Republican: 73 percent, yes; 27 percent, no Independent: 61 percent yes, 39 percent no
Were you ever spanked when you were a child? Democrat: 87 percent, yes; 13 percent, no Republican: 89 percent, yes; 11 percent, no Independent: 86 percent yes; 14 percent, no
Do you think spanking children causes them to be more aggressive?
Democrat: 42 percent, yes; 58 percent, no Republican: 22 percent, yes; 78 percent, no Independent: 39 percent, yes; 61 percent, no
Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/04/19/1386782/partisan-discipline.html#ixzz0lwgt69Nm
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Stossel nails it again
By John Stossel
I used to be a Kennedy-style "liberal." Then I wised up. Now I'm a libertarian.
But what does that mean?
Receive news alerts
Sign Up
John Stossel RealClearPolitics
economy John Stossel
When I asked people on the street, half had no clue.
We know that conservatives want government to conserve traditional values. They say they're for limited government, but they're pro-drug war, pro-immigration restriction and anti-abortion, and they often support "nation-building."
And so-called liberals? They tend to be anti-gun and pro-choice on abortion. They favor big, powerful government -- they say -- to make life kinder for people.
By contrast, libertarians want government to leave people alone -- in both the economic and personal spheres. Leave us free to pursue our hopes and dreams, as long as we don't hurt anybody else.
Ironically, that used to be called "liberal," which has the same root as "liberty." Several hundred years ago, liberalism was a reaction against the stifling rules imposed by aristocracy and established religion.
I wish I could call myself "liberal" now. But the word has been turned on its head. It now means health police, high taxes, speech codes and so forth.
So I can't call myself a "liberal." I'm stuck with "libertarian." If you have a better word, please let me know.
When I first explained libertarianism to my wife, she said: "That's cruel! What about the poor and the weak? Let them starve?"
I recently asked some prominent libertarians that question, including Jeffrey Miron, who teaches economics at Harvard.
"It might in some cases be a little cruel," Miron said. "But it means you're not taking from people who've worked hard to earn their income (in order) to give it to people who have not worked hard."
But isn't it wrong for people to suffer in a rich country?
"The number of people who will suffer is likely to be very small. Private charity ... will provide support for the vast majority who would be poor in the absence of some kind of support. When government does it, it creates an air of entitlement that leads to more demand for redistribution, till everyone becomes a ward of the state."
Besides, says Wendy McElroy, the founder of ifeminists.com, "government aid doesn't enrich the poor. Government makes them dependent. And the biggest hindrance to the poor ... right now is the government. Government should get out of the way. It should allow people to open cottage industries without making them jump through hoops and licenses and taxing them to death. It should open up public lands and do a 20th-century equivalent of 40 acres and a mule. It should get out of the way of people and let them achieve and rise."
David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, took the discussion to a deeper level.
"Instead of asking, 'What should we do about people who are poor in a rich country?' The first question is, 'Why is this a rich country?' ...
"Five hundred years ago, there weren't rich countries in the world. There are rich countries now because part of the world is following basically libertarian rules: private property, free markets, individualism."
Boaz makes an important distinction between equality and absolute living standards.
"The most important way that people get out of poverty is economic growth that free markets allow. The second-most important way -- maybe it's the first -- is family. There are lots of income transfers within families. Third would be self-help and mutual-aid organizations. This was very big before the rise of the welfare state."
This is an important but unappreciated point: Before the New Deal, people of modest means banded together to help themselves. These organizations were crowded out when government co-opted their insurance functions, which included inexpensive medical care.
Boaz indicts the welfare state for the untold harm it's done in the name of the poor.
"What we find is a system that traps people into dependency. ... You should be asking advocates of that system, 'Why don't you care about the poor?'"
I agree. It appears that when government sets out to solve a problem, not only does it violate our freedom, it also accomplishes the opposite of what it set out to do.
I used to be a Kennedy-style "liberal." Then I wised up. Now I'm a libertarian.
But what does that mean?
Receive news alerts
Sign Up
John Stossel RealClearPolitics
economy John Stossel
When I asked people on the street, half had no clue.
We know that conservatives want government to conserve traditional values. They say they're for limited government, but they're pro-drug war, pro-immigration restriction and anti-abortion, and they often support "nation-building."
And so-called liberals? They tend to be anti-gun and pro-choice on abortion. They favor big, powerful government -- they say -- to make life kinder for people.
By contrast, libertarians want government to leave people alone -- in both the economic and personal spheres. Leave us free to pursue our hopes and dreams, as long as we don't hurt anybody else.
Ironically, that used to be called "liberal," which has the same root as "liberty." Several hundred years ago, liberalism was a reaction against the stifling rules imposed by aristocracy and established religion.
I wish I could call myself "liberal" now. But the word has been turned on its head. It now means health police, high taxes, speech codes and so forth.
So I can't call myself a "liberal." I'm stuck with "libertarian." If you have a better word, please let me know.
When I first explained libertarianism to my wife, she said: "That's cruel! What about the poor and the weak? Let them starve?"
I recently asked some prominent libertarians that question, including Jeffrey Miron, who teaches economics at Harvard.
"It might in some cases be a little cruel," Miron said. "But it means you're not taking from people who've worked hard to earn their income (in order) to give it to people who have not worked hard."
But isn't it wrong for people to suffer in a rich country?
"The number of people who will suffer is likely to be very small. Private charity ... will provide support for the vast majority who would be poor in the absence of some kind of support. When government does it, it creates an air of entitlement that leads to more demand for redistribution, till everyone becomes a ward of the state."
Besides, says Wendy McElroy, the founder of ifeminists.com, "government aid doesn't enrich the poor. Government makes them dependent. And the biggest hindrance to the poor ... right now is the government. Government should get out of the way. It should allow people to open cottage industries without making them jump through hoops and licenses and taxing them to death. It should open up public lands and do a 20th-century equivalent of 40 acres and a mule. It should get out of the way of people and let them achieve and rise."
David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, took the discussion to a deeper level.
"Instead of asking, 'What should we do about people who are poor in a rich country?' The first question is, 'Why is this a rich country?' ...
"Five hundred years ago, there weren't rich countries in the world. There are rich countries now because part of the world is following basically libertarian rules: private property, free markets, individualism."
Boaz makes an important distinction between equality and absolute living standards.
"The most important way that people get out of poverty is economic growth that free markets allow. The second-most important way -- maybe it's the first -- is family. There are lots of income transfers within families. Third would be self-help and mutual-aid organizations. This was very big before the rise of the welfare state."
This is an important but unappreciated point: Before the New Deal, people of modest means banded together to help themselves. These organizations were crowded out when government co-opted their insurance functions, which included inexpensive medical care.
Boaz indicts the welfare state for the untold harm it's done in the name of the poor.
"What we find is a system that traps people into dependency. ... You should be asking advocates of that system, 'Why don't you care about the poor?'"
I agree. It appears that when government sets out to solve a problem, not only does it violate our freedom, it also accomplishes the opposite of what it set out to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)