Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Competing Ideological Continuums
Currently, I have found that there are two different political ideology continuums that people use. Unfortunately, one of them casts the right in a negative light while the true political continuum reveals the truth.
For many, and indeed most, the perception is that the political continuum has communism on the left flank and fascism on the right flank. Intense nationalism, to those who ascribe to this continuum, is a phenomenon of the right. Hitler, for example, was a right winger in this context. On the left of this continuum, one would find people who believe that the state should exert control over the economy and society. Leaders like Mao and Stalin are considered leftists.
There is an obvious problem with the political continuum being defined that way. Hitler sought to control society and to use the state to manipulate the economy. The only difference is that people of the left do not try to manipulate the economy, they try to run it. Hitler’s “right wing” fascism and Stalin’s “left wing” communism are both examples of authoritarianism. Mussolini for example, widely considered a fascist, was first and foremost a socialist. The ideas are not competing, they are complimentary because they are both about control.
A true political continuum realizes that fascism and communism are, in fact, very similar in that they attempt to exert control over society. Authoritarian forms of government are on the left; both fascism and communism are left wing. On the right is anarchy, the antithesis of absolute authoritarianism.
Certainly, the Republican Party today is likely a bit to the right of the Democrat Party but the fact remains that both are sliding to the left. Unfortunately, conservatism, a true right wing ideology that stands for freedom and liberty, is being alienated by both political parties. I feel that the American people are further to the right than either party is currently; we want liberty and less government. A majority of Americans are conservative and are awaiting Republicans or Democrats, most likely Republicans, to represent their interests again. It is my belief that the rise in registered Independents or unaffiliated voters is the result of both political parties shifting further left than the average American.
For many, and indeed most, the perception is that the political continuum has communism on the left flank and fascism on the right flank. Intense nationalism, to those who ascribe to this continuum, is a phenomenon of the right. Hitler, for example, was a right winger in this context. On the left of this continuum, one would find people who believe that the state should exert control over the economy and society. Leaders like Mao and Stalin are considered leftists.
There is an obvious problem with the political continuum being defined that way. Hitler sought to control society and to use the state to manipulate the economy. The only difference is that people of the left do not try to manipulate the economy, they try to run it. Hitler’s “right wing” fascism and Stalin’s “left wing” communism are both examples of authoritarianism. Mussolini for example, widely considered a fascist, was first and foremost a socialist. The ideas are not competing, they are complimentary because they are both about control.
A true political continuum realizes that fascism and communism are, in fact, very similar in that they attempt to exert control over society. Authoritarian forms of government are on the left; both fascism and communism are left wing. On the right is anarchy, the antithesis of absolute authoritarianism.
Certainly, the Republican Party today is likely a bit to the right of the Democrat Party but the fact remains that both are sliding to the left. Unfortunately, conservatism, a true right wing ideology that stands for freedom and liberty, is being alienated by both political parties. I feel that the American people are further to the right than either party is currently; we want liberty and less government. A majority of Americans are conservative and are awaiting Republicans or Democrats, most likely Republicans, to represent their interests again. It is my belief that the rise in registered Independents or unaffiliated voters is the result of both political parties shifting further left than the average American.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Europe Trending Right
Per several news outlets, the right (a relative term in European Politics) has scored impressive victories in elections across Europe for the European Parliament. I continue to be confused which side of the Atlantic I am on.
The United States has not only turned, it has veered to the left under the guidance of President Obama. Chrysler and General Motors, two manufacturing giants, have effectively been nationalized. A Keynesian spending economic stimulus plan of unprecedented proportions, not tax cuts, has been tabbed as the solution to our economic woes. To top it off, the nation’s largest financial firms are taking funds, as well as orders, from the government.
Meanwhile, across the Atlantic in Europe, right-leaning parties appear to be on the rise in European Union elections as well as in the polls for national elections in Europe. The leaders of Germany and France, Merkel and Sarkozy respectively, have requested that the American President restrain spending. Chancellor Merkel has criticized the Federal Reserve for its extremely loose monetary policy and resisted President Obama’s calls for more Keynesian stimulus spending in Germany.
The United States is busily turning leftward while it appears that Europeans are asking for a rightward shift and warning President Obama to restrain himself. Conservatives in America hopefully understand that what the people want is a government run by sustainable conservative principles. Even Europe is asking for a turn to the right.
The United States has not only turned, it has veered to the left under the guidance of President Obama. Chrysler and General Motors, two manufacturing giants, have effectively been nationalized. A Keynesian spending economic stimulus plan of unprecedented proportions, not tax cuts, has been tabbed as the solution to our economic woes. To top it off, the nation’s largest financial firms are taking funds, as well as orders, from the government.
Meanwhile, across the Atlantic in Europe, right-leaning parties appear to be on the rise in European Union elections as well as in the polls for national elections in Europe. The leaders of Germany and France, Merkel and Sarkozy respectively, have requested that the American President restrain spending. Chancellor Merkel has criticized the Federal Reserve for its extremely loose monetary policy and resisted President Obama’s calls for more Keynesian stimulus spending in Germany.
The United States is busily turning leftward while it appears that Europeans are asking for a rightward shift and warning President Obama to restrain himself. Conservatives in America hopefully understand that what the people want is a government run by sustainable conservative principles. Even Europe is asking for a turn to the right.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
American Tyranny
Everyone knows that President Obama hopes that the Supreme Court will have empathy. We all know that empathy, in regards to judicial decisions, is contrary to the rule of law. Using the federal bench as a means for the government to empathize with the American people will further erode the rule of law, one of the foundational pillars of our great country.
Empathy is favoritism when used to decide disputes. The greatness of our society, the reason that America is a beacon of hope throughout the world, is due in no small part to the fact that justice is administered equally, without respect to race, gender or ethnicity, and is based on reason. Using empathy, the Supreme Court will be picking winners and losers in society based not on logical reasoning and the law but on sentiments and feelings. The rule of law, and not the rule of empathy, is what ensures that we are free from the whims of our political leaders (i.e. tyranny).
In addition to tossing aside the rule of law, President Obama has tossed aside the free market by tampering with General Motors and Chrysler. The actions of the Obama Administration are tyrannical because they have subjected the American society to empathy from the government. A misguided attempt by the Obama Administration, a process which began under the Bush Administration, to empathize with the workers of GM and Chrysler has distorted the market and subjected our economic system to the whims of politicians. These actions are tyranny, plain and simple, albeit tyranny with a gentle touch.
In both the judiciary and the economy, President Obama has taken actions that are revealing a pattern of behavior that should clue us in on his core beliefs. If he truly believes that it is the role of the government to empathize with the American people, and his actions suggest that he does, his core principles are contrary to those of our founders and those principles outlined in our sacred founding documents.
Empathy is favoritism when used to decide disputes. The greatness of our society, the reason that America is a beacon of hope throughout the world, is due in no small part to the fact that justice is administered equally, without respect to race, gender or ethnicity, and is based on reason. Using empathy, the Supreme Court will be picking winners and losers in society based not on logical reasoning and the law but on sentiments and feelings. The rule of law, and not the rule of empathy, is what ensures that we are free from the whims of our political leaders (i.e. tyranny).
In addition to tossing aside the rule of law, President Obama has tossed aside the free market by tampering with General Motors and Chrysler. The actions of the Obama Administration are tyrannical because they have subjected the American society to empathy from the government. A misguided attempt by the Obama Administration, a process which began under the Bush Administration, to empathize with the workers of GM and Chrysler has distorted the market and subjected our economic system to the whims of politicians. These actions are tyranny, plain and simple, albeit tyranny with a gentle touch.
In both the judiciary and the economy, President Obama has taken actions that are revealing a pattern of behavior that should clue us in on his core beliefs. If he truly believes that it is the role of the government to empathize with the American people, and his actions suggest that he does, his core principles are contrary to those of our founders and those principles outlined in our sacred founding documents.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
United States Government Refuses to Accept Free Market Solution
I just heard a spokesman from General Motors on a radio show say that he was grateful for the government stepping in to save the company. He outlined why he felt that way and his explanation for why he is appreciative of government intervention is precisely why I believe that the company should have failed.
According to the spokesman, General Motors’ bankruptcy process allows the company to shed its bad assets and sell the viable assets to a new company. The new company will be the new General Motors that will consist of Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GMC. During the process, Hummer, Saab and Saturn will be put up for sale while Pontiac will be shut down completely. Saturn has already been purchased.
It was necessary for the government to be involved, according to the spokesman, because if General Motors had filed for bankruptcy without assurance that the government would purchase at least a major part of the viable assets, then there would very likely have been no one to buy the viable assets. At the very least, there would have been no single venture capitalist, hedge fund or other capital entity that would have taken a chance on the new General Motors. The government was the only option.
What the spokesman explained was the process of the free market shedding weaknesses. If General Motors files for bankruptcy and there is no one willing to purchase its assets, then the market has dictated that the company is a failure and that none of the assets were actually viable. The market should have been left to do its work instead of the government stepping in and keeping a failed company on life support. Capital invested in General Motors should have been liquidated so that it could be reinvested into stronger companies. That is how capitalism perpetuates.
Honestly, I find it difficult to believe that some financier would not have taken a chance on Chevrolet or Cadillac, and likely even GMC or Buick, because they are distinctly American brands that likely could be restructured into lean and efficient automobile brands. Bondholders, shareholders, the unions and whoever else that owned the “old” General Motors certainly would have negotiated and accepted a reasonable offer from someone willing to step in.
But, if no one was willing to purchase any of the apparently viable assets, then the company should have been left to die. Instead, the government defied the free market and did not allow its mechanisms to take their toll. Failure is inherent in capitalism, but in no other system can success run so rampant.
The governments’ actions show that our political leaders do not have the faith in the free market that is necessary. If they did, General Motors would be on its own to push through the bankruptcy process. Not only does government intervention show a lack of faith the free market but it shows that the government has too much faith in itself, believing that intervention was best for the country. A faith in government that runs that deep is contrary to the American Way. What has happened to our country?
According to the spokesman, General Motors’ bankruptcy process allows the company to shed its bad assets and sell the viable assets to a new company. The new company will be the new General Motors that will consist of Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GMC. During the process, Hummer, Saab and Saturn will be put up for sale while Pontiac will be shut down completely. Saturn has already been purchased.
It was necessary for the government to be involved, according to the spokesman, because if General Motors had filed for bankruptcy without assurance that the government would purchase at least a major part of the viable assets, then there would very likely have been no one to buy the viable assets. At the very least, there would have been no single venture capitalist, hedge fund or other capital entity that would have taken a chance on the new General Motors. The government was the only option.
What the spokesman explained was the process of the free market shedding weaknesses. If General Motors files for bankruptcy and there is no one willing to purchase its assets, then the market has dictated that the company is a failure and that none of the assets were actually viable. The market should have been left to do its work instead of the government stepping in and keeping a failed company on life support. Capital invested in General Motors should have been liquidated so that it could be reinvested into stronger companies. That is how capitalism perpetuates.
Honestly, I find it difficult to believe that some financier would not have taken a chance on Chevrolet or Cadillac, and likely even GMC or Buick, because they are distinctly American brands that likely could be restructured into lean and efficient automobile brands. Bondholders, shareholders, the unions and whoever else that owned the “old” General Motors certainly would have negotiated and accepted a reasonable offer from someone willing to step in.
But, if no one was willing to purchase any of the apparently viable assets, then the company should have been left to die. Instead, the government defied the free market and did not allow its mechanisms to take their toll. Failure is inherent in capitalism, but in no other system can success run so rampant.
The governments’ actions show that our political leaders do not have the faith in the free market that is necessary. If they did, General Motors would be on its own to push through the bankruptcy process. Not only does government intervention show a lack of faith the free market but it shows that the government has too much faith in itself, believing that intervention was best for the country. A faith in government that runs that deep is contrary to the American Way. What has happened to our country?
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Breaking the Oath
According to uspolitics.about.com, the following is the oath of office that Supreme Court Justices must take:
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
The oath is pretty simple, justice is meant to be administered without respect to persons or socioeconomic status. Judgment is to be rendered in an impartial manner with respect only to the laws and Constitution of the United States. In other words, justice is blind to everything except the law. That is the definition of a society that is governed by the rule of law. The rule of law is the cornerstone of a fair legal system.
When President Obama uses words like “empathy” and “compassion” to describe his ideal pick for Supreme Court Justice, he is paying no mind to the rule of law. Nowhere in the oath of office can I find where a justice is to use compassion or empathy to decide a case. A justice is supposed to make a reasoned and logical decision based on the law, not the color of a person’s skin, not their ethnicity and not their social or financial situation.
Sonia Sotomayor, according to President Obama, will be compassionate and empathetic. The President would not have chosen Judge Sotomayor if he did not believe that she would live up to his standards. What I do not understand is how Justice Sotomayor, should she be confirmed, or any justice for that matter, will be able to keep their oath and be compassionate and/or empathetic. The oath leaves no room for compromise; decisions are to be made without regard to compassion or empathy.
Essentially, President Obama has nominated Judge Sotomayor and will be displeased with her performance if she adheres solely to her oath of office. He will be satisfied only if she breaks her oath and considers the human aspect of a case with empathy and compassion before making a decision. President Obama expects all of his Supreme Court nominees to break their oath of office and disregard the rule of law, perhaps not in all cases, but in some. I hope that someone will be able to explain to me how the same President who refuses to compromise on morality willingly accepts that justices on the highest court in the land ought to compromise the rule of law.
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
The oath is pretty simple, justice is meant to be administered without respect to persons or socioeconomic status. Judgment is to be rendered in an impartial manner with respect only to the laws and Constitution of the United States. In other words, justice is blind to everything except the law. That is the definition of a society that is governed by the rule of law. The rule of law is the cornerstone of a fair legal system.
When President Obama uses words like “empathy” and “compassion” to describe his ideal pick for Supreme Court Justice, he is paying no mind to the rule of law. Nowhere in the oath of office can I find where a justice is to use compassion or empathy to decide a case. A justice is supposed to make a reasoned and logical decision based on the law, not the color of a person’s skin, not their ethnicity and not their social or financial situation.
Sonia Sotomayor, according to President Obama, will be compassionate and empathetic. The President would not have chosen Judge Sotomayor if he did not believe that she would live up to his standards. What I do not understand is how Justice Sotomayor, should she be confirmed, or any justice for that matter, will be able to keep their oath and be compassionate and/or empathetic. The oath leaves no room for compromise; decisions are to be made without regard to compassion or empathy.
Essentially, President Obama has nominated Judge Sotomayor and will be displeased with her performance if she adheres solely to her oath of office. He will be satisfied only if she breaks her oath and considers the human aspect of a case with empathy and compassion before making a decision. President Obama expects all of his Supreme Court nominees to break their oath of office and disregard the rule of law, perhaps not in all cases, but in some. I hope that someone will be able to explain to me how the same President who refuses to compromise on morality willingly accepts that justices on the highest court in the land ought to compromise the rule of law.
Government Healthcare: Means to an End
One of the items that has been on the liberal agenda for decades is healthcare. For liberals, healthcare is a great issue because it plays to their strengths, and in the long run it will allow them to gain even more control over individuals lives', all the while claiming to do so in our best interest. In the end, liberals think they are better at running our lives than we are - they want to control our lives to save us from ourselves. Conservatives cannot allow the government to usurp more power over healthcare because the consequences will be devastating to our individual liberties.
Healthcare is a winner for liberals because they love to use identity politics (i.e. sob stories) and always claim to be looking out for the common man. Telling stories that glorify the universal coverage acheived in Canada and Britain and contrasting those stories with profiles of Americans who have suffered because of lack of health coverage is a favorite liberal pastime. Ensuring that all Americans have healthcare coverage will protect the common man, nevermind that the coverage will provide for slow, rationed and poor medical care.
Government healthcare is the ultimate goal for liberals because once they acheive their goal, they will have the license to control any aspect of our lives. Sin taxes can be applied to unhealthy foods like soda, bacon and cheese, all for the purpose of discouraging people from eating those foods. There are already sin taxes on tobacco and alcohol products to help protect us from ourselves. Not long after, the government will attempt to restrict us from taking part in activities that may subject us to injuries. For example, some government healthcare bureaucrat may call and tell you that your son cannot play football because he is too small and is thus more likely to be injured.
That sounds radical, of course, but the government will tell us that these measures are necessary to cut healthcare costs. If only people would eat healthy food and not participate in rough activities, fewer people would require expensive medical treatment and costs would go down.
Bottom line, government healthcare will provide liberals with the dream excuse to exert further control on our lives - to save us money! If only we allow the government to save us from injuring ourselves, we could pay fewer taxes. We cannot let the liberals use our compassion for others against us, because that is what they will attempt to do. We cannot give in to the sob stories that liberals present because the end result will be lower quality care for everyone and and increased government presence in our lives. Healthcare is a dream issue for the liberals, we have to ensure that their dream issue becomes a political nightmare.
Healthcare is a winner for liberals because they love to use identity politics (i.e. sob stories) and always claim to be looking out for the common man. Telling stories that glorify the universal coverage acheived in Canada and Britain and contrasting those stories with profiles of Americans who have suffered because of lack of health coverage is a favorite liberal pastime. Ensuring that all Americans have healthcare coverage will protect the common man, nevermind that the coverage will provide for slow, rationed and poor medical care.
Government healthcare is the ultimate goal for liberals because once they acheive their goal, they will have the license to control any aspect of our lives. Sin taxes can be applied to unhealthy foods like soda, bacon and cheese, all for the purpose of discouraging people from eating those foods. There are already sin taxes on tobacco and alcohol products to help protect us from ourselves. Not long after, the government will attempt to restrict us from taking part in activities that may subject us to injuries. For example, some government healthcare bureaucrat may call and tell you that your son cannot play football because he is too small and is thus more likely to be injured.
That sounds radical, of course, but the government will tell us that these measures are necessary to cut healthcare costs. If only people would eat healthy food and not participate in rough activities, fewer people would require expensive medical treatment and costs would go down.
Bottom line, government healthcare will provide liberals with the dream excuse to exert further control on our lives - to save us money! If only we allow the government to save us from injuring ourselves, we could pay fewer taxes. We cannot let the liberals use our compassion for others against us, because that is what they will attempt to do. We cannot give in to the sob stories that liberals present because the end result will be lower quality care for everyone and and increased government presence in our lives. Healthcare is a dream issue for the liberals, we have to ensure that their dream issue becomes a political nightmare.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Obama Freedom Policy?
President Obama recently stated that he did not think that the United States ought to impose its values on other countries, but rather we should lead by example. Democracy, the rule of law, freedom of speech and freedom of religion are universal principles that all nations are able to embrace, he claims.
I wish that all nations did embrace those principles. Unfortunately, that is not the case. While I do not think that America should impose its values, because impose is a strong word with negative connotations, I think that freedom, democracy and the rule of law ought to be our export of top priority. The means with which we export these invaluable ideals is open to debate and subject to disagreement.
Leading by example is one means to export liberty but will not work in every case. Assuring that Europe would continue to be free after WWII was not accomplished by our great nation simply leading by example. We led, or in the very least assisted, the Allied military effort on the battlefield to protect freedom abroad. The United States stood up to the expansion of communism in the Korean War and held firm in Berlin to protect freedom in Germany. Simply leading by example at home in the United States would not have stopped the German or Italian Fascists nor would it have stopped the spread of Soviet Communism.
I am of the belief that freedom is a natural desire of man and that the United States ought to assist societies in their quest for freedom. Leading by example is certainly the first step but when push comes to shove, America should be willing to fight alongside other nations trying to rise above tyranny as we have in the past. Were it not for the help of the French, after all, our Continental Army likely would have failed to defeat our tyrannical British overlords.
President Obama, with that statement, may have hinted at his underlying philosophy on foreign relations that breaks with the American policy of the past. There is an isolationist tone in his words that may not serve America, or the cause of freedom in the world, very well in an increasingly global world where freedom faces numerous obstacles.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.9ea937445ae71bcf5056c436c0955d4d.1731&show_article=1
I wish that all nations did embrace those principles. Unfortunately, that is not the case. While I do not think that America should impose its values, because impose is a strong word with negative connotations, I think that freedom, democracy and the rule of law ought to be our export of top priority. The means with which we export these invaluable ideals is open to debate and subject to disagreement.
Leading by example is one means to export liberty but will not work in every case. Assuring that Europe would continue to be free after WWII was not accomplished by our great nation simply leading by example. We led, or in the very least assisted, the Allied military effort on the battlefield to protect freedom abroad. The United States stood up to the expansion of communism in the Korean War and held firm in Berlin to protect freedom in Germany. Simply leading by example at home in the United States would not have stopped the German or Italian Fascists nor would it have stopped the spread of Soviet Communism.
I am of the belief that freedom is a natural desire of man and that the United States ought to assist societies in their quest for freedom. Leading by example is certainly the first step but when push comes to shove, America should be willing to fight alongside other nations trying to rise above tyranny as we have in the past. Were it not for the help of the French, after all, our Continental Army likely would have failed to defeat our tyrannical British overlords.
President Obama, with that statement, may have hinted at his underlying philosophy on foreign relations that breaks with the American policy of the past. There is an isolationist tone in his words that may not serve America, or the cause of freedom in the world, very well in an increasingly global world where freedom faces numerous obstacles.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.9ea937445ae71bcf5056c436c0955d4d.1731&show_article=1
Interesting Contrast
Per the Washington Post today, President Obama says "I don't want to put an artificial timetable on the process" referring to his offer to Iran to engage in the diplomatic process concerning their aspirations to attain nuclear weapons.
It is interesting that President Obama is not interested in putting an "artificial timetable" on the "process" but pushed hard for a definate withdrawal date from the War in Iraq. Why would the United States not want to monitor the process in Iraq and act accordingly instead of setting a hard deadline? Why would President Obama set a specific date on the closing of Gitmo without having a plan or monitoring the "process?"
The contrast may reveal something that the more cynical of us knew long ago, that the hard and fast deadlines President Obama set for Iraq and Gitmo were simply political moves to satisfy his leftist base. The deadlines were not smart decisions strategically but simply political moves that were not necessarily feasible. On Iran, President Obama believes that the smart move stratigically is to wait on the "process," and he can follow through on that because he does not have his leftist base howling to set a date.
It seems to me that this contrast is proof that setting a timetable on Iraq withdrawal and the closing of Gitmo was an example of putting politics ahead of what is best for America; putting the interests of Obama ahead of the interests of the nation. Call me crazy, but I think that the most important thing that Obama intends to "preserve, protect and defend" is his political stature.
It is interesting that President Obama is not interested in putting an "artificial timetable" on the "process" but pushed hard for a definate withdrawal date from the War in Iraq. Why would the United States not want to monitor the process in Iraq and act accordingly instead of setting a hard deadline? Why would President Obama set a specific date on the closing of Gitmo without having a plan or monitoring the "process?"
The contrast may reveal something that the more cynical of us knew long ago, that the hard and fast deadlines President Obama set for Iraq and Gitmo were simply political moves to satisfy his leftist base. The deadlines were not smart decisions strategically but simply political moves that were not necessarily feasible. On Iran, President Obama believes that the smart move stratigically is to wait on the "process," and he can follow through on that because he does not have his leftist base howling to set a date.
It seems to me that this contrast is proof that setting a timetable on Iraq withdrawal and the closing of Gitmo was an example of putting politics ahead of what is best for America; putting the interests of Obama ahead of the interests of the nation. Call me crazy, but I think that the most important thing that Obama intends to "preserve, protect and defend" is his political stature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)