But It Might Work For Us: Part II
by: R.J. Moeller
(if you've yet to read "Part I", click here first)
There are plenty of reasons to be upset with the government in 2008. The men and women who run that government have in many ways let us down. Some have lied to us. Some have exploited their power for personal gains that benefit only themselves. Some pursue purely partisan gains that benefit small segments of society that happen to eithe
r have enough money or sympathy to gain access to the bureaucratic meal-ticket table. Then there are some elected officials who are simply foolish, and it's a perpetual mystery who exactly put them in to office. (People actually get out of bed to vote for Nancy Pelosi...scary, huh?)
But our duties as average, patriotic citizens of this great country is to remain vigilant of those we lend power to, engaged in a political process that affects almost every part of our lives, and informed well enough to make the best possible decisions come every other November.
People are rightly fed up with corruption, greed and cronyism in
Think Saint Barack is above the "politics as usual" in the Beltway? Are you really sick of corruption and cronyism and believe Senator Obama to be the change we've been waiting for? His own top economic adviser, Franklin Raines, left the Clinton administration in 1999 to take over as the CEO of Fannie Mae where in five years he personally made more than $90 million and was forced out due to pressure from federal investigations into his decision to push for Freddie Mae to start buying up more and more bad debt. (You might remember such fatally-flawed decisions like the one to bundle bad mortgages with good ones from the current economic firestorm ignited by the collapse of Mr. Raines's lending institution.)
At least that whole thing didn’t come back to hurt any of those “little guys” Obama and Biden love to shoot the bull-market breeze with at their local Home Depot, right? Ugh.
We say we want change in the political gridlock and partisan dog-and-pony shows that typify our nation's capital, but even in the face of John McCain’s 26 years of fighting to change his own party, and universally recognized and admired ability to reach across party lines, we’re certa
in the right man for the job is some largely unknown party-conformist who votes to the Left of Ted Kennedy. We say we want the troops home and that we don’t want to have to go back to Iraq in the future, so we’re rejecting the man (McCain) whose plans in 2003 for a counter-insurgency strategy, and for at least 30,000 more troops, were nearly four years ahead of their time and are daily being proven to have been spot-on. If McCain’s advice had been followed initially, more troops would probably be back already having been able to enjoy the encouraging winds of victory propelling them home to proud loved ones. We say we’re scared about Sarah Palin’s qualifications to be vice president, so we’re voting for the other party’s ticket with an even less qualified presidential candidate.
The truth is, we don’t really know what we want, because we don’t really know or remember what has failed to work (or succeeded) in the past.
On one hand we don’t want to be told tough truths like that many of us are accomplices to the economic meltdown by either taking loans we couldn’t afford or by being too ignorant to realize we were being taken advantage of. We, by our voting and polling habits, and because of our culturally thin skin and shallow grasp of even the most rudimentary facets of how something like capitalism is supposed to work, have effectively told politicians to never bring anything but warm and fuzzy news about everything from wars we once supported to economic markets that experience the same up-and-down cycles we know to be consistent with the totality of life’s experiences.
Then on the other hand, we’re too busy with important things like Facebook, MySpace, and the new killer Top 40 ring-tones we hope will, once heard obnoxiously loud in the office, help to further define us as a person in the eyes of our co-workers, to find out what really is happening in our economy and government. It would be far too difficult to spin multiple intellectual plates at once and recognize that our economy crashed because of a volatile mixture of over-regulation in areas such as who had to be given loans, under-regulation for those who were insuring the risky loans, exploitation of government-created loopholes by private companies, a system artificially propped up on low interest rates that was banking on a continuous rise in housing market prices, and everything compounded by a weakened U.S. dollar and the 2nd highest corporate tax rates in the world.
We put our head in the sand when the finger is pointed even vaguely in our direction, and pour cement in that same hole our head is in when someone offers any theory for the economic disaster other than “It must be conservatives’ fault because they like those mysterious free markets.” (Note: “Free markets” are also loosely defined as “the best possible chance for prosperity, conducted in the confines of voluntarily agreed upon economic interactions among free people.”)
We’re completely unable or unwilling to separate the ideas that work from the fallible politicians who attempt to implement them. Even more predictable, when it become abundantly clear that any politicians with a “D” in front of their names are neck-deep in aiding and abetting some of the root causes of the problems we face, we allow the media to bait-and-switch us with the same reheated Left-over story lines (“Capitalism failed”, “Republicans hate children”, “Bus
h is a ninny and must have accidentally pulled the ‘crappy economy’ lever on the same machine that Dick Cheney built to control the weather patterns near New Orleans”, etc., etc.) that should have been thrown out with yesterday’s Keith Olbermann monologues.
If something like capitalism works, as we know that it clearly does, then patent support for it, and constant articulation of it, ought to be a prerequisite for any politician we would even consider voting for. This shouldn’t be a “Republican” issue; it should be a non-negotiable “keeping America as strong and prosperous as possible” issue.
But it doesn’t bother us to hear Democrats like Obama and Biden say that it is “patriotic” to pay more taxes in a time when implementation of such a short-sighted policy would mean sustained recession. It doesn’t bother us for liberals to imprudently state that “health insurance in America isn’t a privilege, but a right” when implementation of universal health care (especially in light of the federal government’s inability to fix even Social Security) would further devastate our economy and ensure that Socialism would be our only option left. (This forced march towards Socialism, coincidentally, was Karl Marx’s prediction for America’s eventual fate more than 150 years ago.) It hasn’t bothered us to hear Obama say that the federal government will “take from some to give to others” because we never bothered to read basic texts like the Federalist Papers or Wealth of Nations that explain what the country we live in is all about, let alone documents like the Communist Manifesto to find out more on what the Left is all about.
Americans are historically leery of any who seek power over them, and with good reason. The reason someone like John McCain has stood out, and honestly, even reached this impressive level of consideration and attention, is precisely because of his commitment to traditional American ideals of governmental accountability, de-centralized powers, fiscal responsibility, strong national defense, and independent thinking at the cost of being unpopular.
A vote for McCain in 2008, more than anything else, is both a responsible appraisal of the tumultuous world stage we find ourselves acting in the lead role on, and the chance to preemptively reject the same inherently flawed Leftist dogmas American voters seem to “forget” don’t work every few decades or so.
My suggestion for a new poster from the McCain-Palin campaign: Obama…Remember, It’s not gonna work
RJ's Social Network
Read RJ’s Columns/Blogs
What is “Mere Conservatism”?
Video of RJ
Rudy the Dog barks at "change"
Books You Need to Read
Wall Street Journal
Blogroll
- Acton Power Blog
- Big Government
- Big Hollywood
- Black and Red
- Conservative Daily Blog
- Dad's blog
- Dennis Prager (The Master)
- Desiring God (John Piper)
- Doug Giles (Clash Radio)
- Education News
- Hugh Hewitt
- Jihad Watch
- Mere Orthodoxy
- Michael Medved
- Milton Friedman
- Mom's blog
- My LOST blog
- Only Good Movies
- Patriots Corner
- Remnant Culture
- Shot In The Dark
- Stiletto Blog
- Subscribe via RSS
- The Straight Hype
- Twitter Me
Columnists You Need to Read
- Ann Coulter
- Charles Krauthammer
- Christopher Hitchens
- George Will
- Jonah Goldberg
- Karl Rove
- Mark Steyn
- Marvin Olasky
- Thomas Sowell
- Tony Blankley
- Walter E. Williams
Music/Entertainment
News/Politics
- Drudge Report
- Fact Check
- Fox News
- Hot Air
- Jerusalem Post
- National Review
- Real Clear Politics
- Townhall
- Washington Times
- Weekly Standard
October 13th, 2008 - 06:24
Can we stop talking about the federalist papers and our founder fathers as if they were the beacons of human decency and ultimate knowledge? The federalist papers were written by people who considered slavery acceptable and thought women shouldnt be able to vote. Lets move beyond all this “back in the day they had it right” bullshit and realize we live in a society with vastly different needs and concerns than in the 1700s. Evoking the wisdom of “Wealth of Nations” is laughable when the current global economy was unimaginable to Adam Smith. Globalization for him meant trading tabacco with england for tea! Realize that, while we owe a great debt to the ideas of our nations founders and 18th century economists, we have had a few good ideas since then. And stop lambasting everyone as ignorant or misinformed simply because they have a different view of macroeconomic policy then you. You certainly dont have the final say on truth.
October 13th, 2008 - 07:06
One “truth” A Voice does have the final say on: cursing is lame. (especially on a public website where the perpetrator is a coward who won’t put his name behind his angry “thoughts”).
It seems your beef is with wisdom from any time prior to Bill Clinton. I assume you are the same macro-economist who masterfully explained last time that Clinton’s higher tax rates had no affect on the growth of our markets in the 1990’s. This is sad and of course extremely short-sighted. You act as if the discussion of Adam Smith, our Founding Fathers, and free market economics is something that everyone already understands and has been proven wrong and people just want to move on with whatever progressive policies freshmen senators from the most corrupt political system on the face of the earth spew out in between meaningless platitudes. I keep referencing these things because almost no one under the age of 30 has actually read (and more importantly, studied) them. This is incredibly disappointing. I’m not special, just an avid reader who cant believe how many people don’t know even the recent history they claim has superiority over the ancient stuff that doesnt matter anymore.
Have you read the Federalist Papers? How about more than once (something required for any information you might want to learn)? What about Wealth of Nations? You dismiss them, but your main reason appears to be that they are old. Is it then fair to assume that you also dont care for such ancient texts as the Constitution, Bible, the writings of Socrates, etc.? Age = dumb? No one is demanding we live every aspect of our lives by the letter of the Federalist Paper law. No one is saying run the economy as they did in 18th century. You’ve created a “straw man” argument (something all-too-typical of the Left) that you can then “defeat” by attacking me and accusing me of fanatical adherence to antiquated texts that you’re insinuating I don’t understand in their proper context. Good ideas are good ideas. We chose, for better or worse, to base our government largely on the ideas in texts like the Federalist Papers. Same with our economy on Wealth of Nations. My intent isnt to live in the past, but point to wisdom that people (including obviously yourself) have barely (if ever) read. People dont really know the past so they make judgments about current issues (and predictions about the future) based on information and a frame of reference that is limited in scope and short-sighted in practice.
I am not saying I am the only smart person to ever live. These things I believe, the things YOU believe, have all been thought of before. There is nothing new under the sun. We like to think there is all this progressive wisdom that modern man has invented so we can dismiss wisdom of the past that we disagree with, but our disagreement is largely based on the fact that we dont fully understand the past that helped to shape our current views and understandings.
There isnt enough blog space on the entire internet to point out everything people living in the 18th century got wrong. But again, your rationale leads to us assuming that 200 years from now everything we’re doing will (and should) be dismissed as meaningless and worthless. How sad. I guess you haven’t really thought much of this through, but resent people who have (especially ones who appeal to ideas and writings written before Blackberry’s). I don’t claim to have the final say on all truth (another “straw man” argument”)…just apparently infinitely more than you.
They had slavery, we have abortion. More than a million babies are murdered each year, 99% of whom are extinguished in the name of “choice.” This is the same line of thinking plantation owners used to justify slavery. Slaves were their property, were thought of as having less value as white people, and thus it was a choice to have them working their fields. Seems to me we have our own injustices that (hopefully) generations to come will look back and wonder what we were thinking and how any of us could live in a country that rationalized (and voted for candidates like Obama that want to make it federally-funded and available through the 3rd trimester) murder. Thankfully we’ll have your great great grandchildren around to remind their contemporaries that those old geezers in 2008 were fools and immoral and nothing they did or said or believed in or practiced was worthy of reflection or understanding.
-Robby “Anonymous” Moeller
October 13th, 2008 - 10:04
Robby…I am jiving with you 100%. And as for your anonymous friend, he seems pretty certain that while you are not the “final say on truth,” he is. That’s good to know. I think it’s interesting that the views of SOME of our founding father’s on slavery and women voting should lead to the conclusion that nothing in the federalist papers are relevant to our country anymore. If the founding father’s were not 100% correct on everything, it’s good to know that it must mean they were 100% wrong on everything. Wow.
Thanks for your clear thinking in the midst of some clouded times.
Lindsey Foote…not reluctant to put my name next to my opinions.
October 13th, 2008 - 10:56
First, sorry for cursing, that was inappropriate and I didn’t mean to be offensive.
Second, I find it interesting that I am called a coward for posting anonymously when our topic of discussion is the federalist papers, which last i checked were published under a pseudonym. So for the sake of this discussion you can call me “Publius” that should make you happy. My point wasn’t that there is nothing good in the Federalist Papers or Wealth of Nations. In fact I said, and this is a direct quote, “we owe a great debt to the ideas of our nation’s founders and 18th century economists.” My point was that you act as though these documents were infallible and even went so far as to lump them in with the Bible when you defended them.
I guess my major problem isn’t with you ideas Robby but your tone. A perfect example of this is when you say, “You’ve created a ’straw man’ argument (something all-too-typical of the Left.” A straw man argument isn’t something all too typical of the left, it is something that is all too typical in politics and arguments in general. I might be wrong in this but I genuinely do not sense any humility in your posts and the idea that one side is 100% right 100% of the time just seems illogical.
October 13th, 2008 - 11:35
Lindsey-
Thanks for your comments and for taking the time to read and engage these ideas.
Publius-
We gladly accept your apology for cursing and appreciate it. The “I dont care for your tone” argument might be legitimate, but (and here comes a generalization based on writing on such topics for two years and two different magazines) I almost always hear that complaint only from liberals who disagree with my ideas and points. It’s far easier to complain that I sound like a know-it-all than it is to present some well thought out counter-points. Your tried to mask your disdain for my tone in the weak argument that my zeal for wisdom from our nation’s past is misplaced or over-done. If your real concern was that I sounded condescending, then say that and leave it there.
What you were basically doing in your original post was punishing the writers of The Federalist Papers and Adam Smith for being TOO successful. You said it was unimaginable for Smith to think we’d reach the levels of technology and innovation and complexity of markets that we have….but his ideas are largely responsible and foundational to that success. So you’re saying that the man whose ideas spawned something so incredible is not worthy of our time and study in terms of how we might sustain and continue that incredible. Especially in light of the alarming rate at which Americans seem ready to adopt Socialistic policies and bailouts (yes, even some Republicans) it would stand to reason that maybe it is because we dont really know how we got to where we are. Maybe we think those guys are old fools (who are worthy of maybe a little shout-out, like the one you threw in) because we’ve been taught by people who ignore their own eyes and bank accounts and iPhones every time they say we have nothing to learn from those old fools that laid the foundation necessary for something like American free market capitalism to work….
I dont think I’m smarter than you, just wiser. Wisdom is being able to internalize knowledge and make the right assertions about the world we live in. That might be harsh, but you’ve given me nothing to work with here to think otherwise. You say you don’t like that I encourage people to read foundational documents to America’s political and economic successes, and instantly landed yourself in the very camp (those who havent read and understood those documents and ideas) that I am pointing out havent read or understood the documents and ideas that made our successes possible. Then you say you were really just mad at my tone, and although you did apologize, had already cursed and posted a condescending comment to show just how much you love level-headed discussion. Finally, your argument against me citing the common usage of “straw man” arguments by the Left is that everyone does it. But if everyone does it in politics, which I do not disagree with, then that means it is typical of the Left. If you have examples from the Right of this, or even from my own column here, then present those as a more effective piece of evidence to expose my hypocritical double-standard.
I don’t resent your views, I just mourn over them. They are all-too-typical of young adults today (another generalization). We like the things we have, we just dont like (or understand) the system that created them. We live and think as if we deserve freedom and prosperity and that they were snapped into existence. Self-governing and free market capitalism are difficult undertakings. It takes informed citizens, and how can we say we’re sure that the system no longer needs to be as its originators envisioned it if we never learn what they had to say. THIS is the ONLY reason really I want people to read this stuff and constantly reference it. CS Lewis said that people need to be reminded much more often than instructed. We need to be reminded of what has worked and what has not, and this goes for both parties.
Keep reading and commenting, cause I like your fiesty style….just keep it clean and bring more than conjecture and emotionally-based arguments next time.
Good day to you.
October 13th, 2008 - 11:36
P.S. I’m only right 98.5% of the time, not 100%.
October 13th, 2008 - 11:45
Here is a timely article on at least the economic side of what I’ve been saying:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385722252027327.html
I’d love to hear your thoughts Publius on the opinion offered here. (Not a set-up, just wondering.)
Here’s a section from it….
“Where are the champions of free-market capitalism? Someone needs to remind us all that two great works were published in 1776, both representing game-changing advances in human freedom: The Declaration of Independence, authored by future American president, Thomas Jefferson, and “The Wealth of Nations” by Scottish economist Adam Smith. Both embrace the social wisdom of individual liberty; both extol the importance of personal responsibility.
These days, it seems difficult to defend the efficacy, let alone the morality, of an economic approach to human interaction that is now blamed for having put the entire global economy at risk. But that is exactly what we need — most importantly, from America’s next leader.”
October 13th, 2008 - 13:41
Well said Robby. Our founding fathers are turning in their graves. The very things early Americans shed blood for when fighting against England for our independence, such as self-goverance and essentially individual freedoms, are those things which Americans seem to be completely neglecting to consider in this upcoming election. Socialistic thought has never and will never provide that which makes America great. Call income redistribution “fairness” as Biden does or applaud Obama’s eloquent and inspirational message on gov’t funded healthcare to middle America. I say a rose by any other name is still a rose.
October 13th, 2008 - 15:00
Hannah-
Atta girl. I’ve nothing to add. Thanks for contributing to the dialogue. Stay classy.
October 13th, 2008 - 15:26
Anonymous/Publius-
I just re-read your comments and had to clear up a couple of quick points:
-Again, you said yourself you dont disagree with my ideas, just the tone (and presumably, extent to which I believe in them). I really dont want to sound mean but that is incredibly lame. I am guessing you are a guy from your equally sarcastic tone, so as a fellow dude, you really need to reconsider ever (in public) saying you are upset by my tone. We can be more civil, and I admit that, but “tone” is something female roomates have “house meetings” over. This is an open and fair and hopefully fun dialogue on topics that are critically important to our nation’s future and I dont think tone, especially when you claim to AGREE WITH ME on the actual substance of my points, is going to cut it as worthwhile fodder for discussion. Please understand I’m saying this as someone who does want to hear your thoughts, and you’re certainly entitled to your feelings, but is wearisome of liberal-thinking people beating around the bush and changing the parameters for a debate and/or critique of someone else’s publicly posted thoughts.
-You insinuated that I was putting the Bible on-par with these secular documents and that I treated them as infallible. Wrong. These are wisdom-packed writings by sinful, fallen men who made no claim of divine inspiration. I purposely mentioned Socrates as well to show that I was talking about the age of such writings, not necessarily their content or disputed value. However, in keeping with your apparent lack of understanding in what principles this country was founded upon, and writings that influenced our Founders, the Judeo-Christian values typically found in the Good Book are the same that (according to their authors) inspired the thought of men like Adam Smith and James Madison and John Adams and the likes. As a practicing, evangelical Christian (who admittedly has a nasty penchant for sarcasm) the Bible is, in my estimation, the inerrant Word of God and therefore above all other writings. Does that settle where I stand?
-While the Federalist Papers were written under pen-names, eventually (and this is what matters) we learned who had authored them. I find it ironic that you find all that ironic. I’m also surprised at your tone because you seem to be suggesting your thoughts as equally as important.
Swing for the fences,
RJM