Shutter Island: Hitchcock-inspired, Moeller-approved
by: R.J. Moeller
My favorite director is Alfred Hitchcock. No one told a story on the silver screen quite like "old Hitch." I especially love Vertigo, North By Northwest, and Notorious. Hitchcock mastered the psychological thriller, loved setting his stories amidst grandiose backdrops and landscapes, always paid great attention to detail, and usually crafted tales about characters who get caught up in things beyond their control.
Martin Scorsese is a legendary director in his own right, and although I am not very fond of his obsession with making ultra-violent films, his latest effort Shutter Island, is an effective homage to the greatness of Hitchcock.
As your eyes could tell you from the trailer, Leonardo DiCaprio stars in Shutter Island and does a fantastic job.
It's 1954 (the year Hitch's classic Rear Window was released), and U.S. Marshall Teddy Daniels (Leo) has been called to investigate the disappearance of an inmate at an island mental hospital for the criminally insane called Ashecliff off the coast of Massachusetts. Teddy's got his new partner Chuck (Mark Ruffalo) along for the investigation, but upon arrival, it becomes apparent to the characters (and audience) that something is not quite right on Shutter Island.
The prison guards are abnormally fidgety, the Marshals are both asked to turn over their firearms (something no federal agent typically has to do), and there is absolutely no trace of the woman who allegedly escaped. The man running things on Shutter Island is Dr. John Cawley, played exquisitely by Academy Award winner Ben Kingsley, who seems to be thoroughly disinterested in actually helping Teddy and Chuck piece the clues together.
Due to forces beyond their control (a hurricane-like storm that hits the island), the two detectives are stranded overnight and we begin to learn more about Teddy's back-story and what really brought him to the island.
Before becoming a Marshal, Teddy was a soldier in WWII and was personally there for the liberation of the concentration camp at Dachau. He is plagued by the senseless death and destruction he witnessed in Europe. To compound his own emotional health issues, Teddy is a grieving widower. His wife, he claims, was killed in a fire that ravaged the apartment building the two of them had lived in back in Boston.
We learn Teddy requested the assignment to Shutter Island because he believes two key things: First, that the man who started the fire that killed his wife is imprisoned somewhere on the island. And second, that Nazi-like medical and psychological tests are being conducted on the criminally insane housed there. He wants to both confront the killer of his beloved deceased, and gather evidence against the doctors he believes are torturing the patients.
Twists and turns in the story abound from there.
I don't want to give away much more about the plot of Shutter Island. It's a compelling script with superb acting performances turned in by almost every major and minor character. The music was disturbing and perfectly set the mood for the entire film (another Hitchcock special). The psychological twists and turns absolutely keep you on your toes, and as soon as the credits role you will likely feel compelled to start your own group therapy session in hopes of figuring out what exactly just happened over the previous two hours and seventeen minutes.
Shutter Island is rated R for language and intense scenes of death (mostly from shots of concentration camp victims). Do not take your grandma to this movie.
While not an "instant classic" or "must see", if you like great acting, Hitchcock-like storytelling and maintaining an uneasy feeling in the pit of your stomach for more than two hours, go see Shutter Island (and let me know what you thought of it if you already have).
Sowell’s “Intellectuals and Society”
By: R.J. Moeller
G.K. Chesterton once wrote: “Cruelty is, perhaps, the worst kind of sin; and intellectual cruelty is the worst kind of cruelty.”
Written a century after Chesterton’s remarks, Thomas Sowell’s latest effort, Intellectuals and Society, is, broadly speaking, a 317-page cultivation of precisely those sentiments. Combining the heady ideological exegesis of Conflict of Visions (1990) with the utterly graspable dissemination of facts and statistics in both Basic Economics and Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One, Dr. Sowell offers the reader of Intellectuals and Society a part-academic lecture, part-fireside chat, and part-Greek tragedy glimpse into a world few of us would otherwise ever experience.
That world is the realm of the “Intellectual”. It is a world where ideas, so long as they conform to the agreed upon norm, reign supreme, and consequences are rendered inconsequential by the insulation afforded to the idea-makers by things like academic tenure, a highly complicit media, and the unnecessary (and unhealthy) intimidation John and Jane Q. Taxpayer feel in the presence of intellectuals and their ideas.
Sowell’s intent in this book is to explain what an intellectual is, expose what it is an intellectual actually does, and examine what impact an intellectual’s end-product (ideas) has on the society around them. I picked up on seven primary themes/concepts which are developed throughout the entire book.
1) It’s not enough to know; you must be able to apply (and apply correctly).
Using the formula “Intellect < Intelligence < Wisdom”, Sowell stakes out his position on the undue levels of prestige given to those who are, as my generation would say, “book smart.” He explains:
The capacity to grasp and manipulate complex ideas is enough to define intellect but not enough to encompass intelligence, which involves combining intellect with judgment and care in selecting relevant explanatory factors and in establishing empirical tests of any theory that emerges. Intelligence minus judgment equals intellect. Wisdom is the rarest quality of all – the ability to combine intellect, knowledge, experience, and judgment in a way to produce a coherent understanding. Wisdom is the fulfillment of the ancient admonition, “With all your getting, get understanding.”
2) Incentives and Constraints are universal
”Intellectuals”, as a group, are people whose professional task it is to create and cultivate ideas, as opposed to implement them. An intellectual is a member of an occupational category, and the behavior of the members of this category can (and should) be studied to discover characteristics and patterns among them. In Sowell’s mind, the pivotal question that is asked far too infrequently is: What incentives or constraints affect the behavior and patterns of Intellectuals?
Society as a whole suffers when people erroneously assume that the only people with incentives (i.e. money, fame, advancement of ideological beliefs, prestige amongst colleagues, etc.) are “capitalist fat-cats” in expensive suits. Another serious error occurs when people assume that to put any constraints on an Intellectual, on a professor for example, is a horrible thing that will limit creativity or curb academic curiosity. This is rubbish. Without constraints of any kind you have anarchy, even in the academic world.
3) If you ain’t Left, you ain’t right
The “realm of ideas” in which Intellectuals reside is overwhelmingly Left-of-Center in its political and economic ideology. Sowell defines the “vision of the political left” as follows:
…Collective decision-making through government, directed toward – or at least rationalized by – the goal of reducing economic and social inequalities.
The majority of the academic world is progressive, liberal, or far-Left. The majority of the academic world would be included in Sowell’s definition of an Intellectual. You do the math.
4) It’s nice to be needed
Intellectuals tend to “manufacture” a public need for their ideas. There are three basic explanations Sowell offers for why this happens.
The first is completely understandable: intellectuals, like anyone else, want what they do to matter and have a positive impact on the world.
The second is not very flattering: ego. From the time an intellectual is a young student in junior high or high school, they have been told they are the “smart” kid. After attending the best universities for undergraduate, graduate, and post-graduate degrees, many intellectuals succumb to the notion that they are the “philosopher elites” envisioned by the likes of Plato and Karl Marx, destined and ordained to guide the un-enlightened masses to social utopia.
The third explanation for why intellectuals often “manufacture” a public need for their ideas (and services) is, put simply, “dolla’ dolla’s bills ya’ll.” By manipulating the very free market principles so many of them hold in open disdain, intellectuals help to create a demand for themselves, which they are only too happy to supply. Intellectuals need funding, and it is hard to get a grant from the federal government if your area of intellectual expertise involves the teaching of such ideas as limited government.
5) Intellectuals have an influence on society and culture, and friends to help facilitate that influence
After creating a need for themselves, it comes as no surprise that intellectuals end up having a tremendous impact on the society and culture around them. Intellectuals influence public opinion, which is the very air politicians (the decision-makers) breathe, even though the vast majority of Americans do not know the names and faces of the intellectuals who have influenced them.
A largely complicit media do what they can to advance the ideas of intellectuals, and thus their influence grows and grows. In the chapter entitled “Optional Reality in the Media and Academia”, Sowell discusses the ease with which the Intelligentsia (Intellectuals + Gate-keepers of information) ignore facts that contradict their worldview, manipulate data that doesn’t corroborate their hypotheses, and in some extreme cases, lie as if their trousers were engulfed in flames.
Like the militant Muslim who has convinced himself that it is okay to lie under oath to “infidels”, the insulated, self-satisfying world intellectuals can create for themselves is a place where the truth is secondary to the “cause.”
6) Heads in the proverbial sand
It isn’t just that intellectuals, like all fallible human beings, have been wrong about certain things, but it is that they seemingly refuse to learn from their mistakes, and the mistakes they make involve some of the most important things with the furthest-reaching ramifications.
In chapter three, “Intellectuals and Economics,” Sowell gives the example of the Smoot-Hawley tariffs enacted in 1930. In the year following the stock market crash of 1929, unemployment topped out 10%, and by the time the federal government took its first (of many) giant Keynesian steps and signed the protectionist Smoot-Hawley tariff into law, unemployment had already dropped to just over 6%. The stated goal of the tariffs was to reduce unemployment, and was based on the idea driven by leading intellectuals of the time that the State must act, and act big, to save an economy from crisis. By 1931, however, unemployment was more than 15% and in 1932 it was 25.8%.
Have intellectuals learned their lesson in subsequent decades regarding the detrimental nature of government intervention into the economy? NOT EVEN CLOSE!
See: The Obama administration, one saturated with intellectuals, and its preposterous economic antics of the previous year-plus.
7) How are the people who won’t change their minds called “progressive”?
There are three reasons why intellectuals typically do not learn from their mistakes.
First, their presumptions about human nature and knowledge are innately flawed. Intellectuals, on the whole, tend to believe that human beings are inherently “good”, and simply need guidance and direction from the powers on high. This then leads to their fundamental error in how they view knowledge. Knowledge is dispersed among the people and no one person, or oligarchy of intellectuals, can know everything. This logically infers that it is impossible to centrally plan something as big and vast as a nation’s economy (or educational system). A refusal to accept this truth is, as F.A. Hayek wrote, the intellectual Left’s “fatal conceit.”
Second, intellectuals tend to be removed from the results of their ideas. There are so few external tests or criteria for an intellectual to meet. An engineer building a bridge is judged on the soundness of the bridge. Vince Lombardi was judged by his winning record. Intellectuals who come up with a horrendous idea, say, for example, that paying able-bodied “poor” people not to work, and preventing them from saving or investing the money you pay them, will have no ill effects on society, suffer no real consequences for their wretched schemes.
Third, and final, they are surrounded by so many like-minded people, who hail from equally impressive intellectual backgrounds and pedigrees. How can I be wrong when so many of my colleagues (i.e. the other “smart” kids) think the same way? In business they call it “group-think.” In the land of the intellectual, it’s known as “progressive thought” to walk lock-step in line with your peers.
Don’t think for a moment that Dr. Sowell isn’t aware of the fact that his is a book about the potentially dangerous influence intellectuals can have on society, written by an intellectual trying to influence society. Sowell is open, honest, frank, and uncompromising in his assessment of the career he chose for himself. His aim is to educate, not indoctrinate; lead a horse to water, not drown it in elitist condescension.
Thomas Sowell’s writing is an oasis of reasoned thought and discourse, and after finishing (and thoroughly enjoying) Intellectuals and Society, I can confidently say that I’ve been refreshed.
(Do yourself a favor and watch the 5-part interview with Sowell at National Review Online here.)
The Economics of Mere Conservatism: Part II
by: R.J. Moeller
Economic freedom is an essential requisite for political freedom. By enabling people to cooperate with one another without coercion or central direction, it reduces the area over which political power is exercised. In addition, by dispersing power, the free market provides an offset to whatever concentration of political power may arise. The combination of economic and political power in the same hands is a sure recipe for tyranny.
–Milton Friedman, Free To Choose
Let’s not kid ourselves: Everyone has an opinion on the matters that matter most. Despite the pervasive lack of understanding in this country about even the most basic economic terms and concepts, I’d love for someone to try and convince me that economic matters – your job, income, investments, personal property, charitable donations, and taxes – don’t matter a great deal to every Tom, Dick, Harry and Sally in your neighborhood.
Of course they matter. They matter more than almost anything else.
Contrary to the caricature perpetrated, it’s not only “greedy” conservatives and Republicans who are interested in how goods, services, and taxes are saved, spent, regulated and collected. In fact, the exact opposite is true: modern American liberals and progressives fervently believe that economic issues are the most important factors to consider in nearly every single political, cultural, and moral decision a country makes.
But where the Left relies upon flawed ideology and fickle emotional pleas to make their case for top-down socialism and the systematic re-distribution of wealth, those of us who champion personal liberty, free enterprise and property rights stand on the firm ground of quantifiable facts, recorded history, Judeo-Christian teachings, and common sense. There is, of course, an emotional aspect to the “case for free market conservatism”, but it is a thin layer of topsoil above deep bedrock of truth, wisdom, and experience.
If you haven’t already, you should be asking yourself, “How is it then that liberalism, and progressive economic policies, so dominate the national consciousness?”
Dr. Thomas Sowell of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution believes the answer is fairly simple: because the Left believes so deeply in having the government “fix” things, their solutions are always political and political solutions are much more glamorous and get much more attention from a complicit media (and academia). The Right believes in personal responsibility, free market competition, and limited government. Not very sexy.
You won’t see George Clooney starring in an Oscar contending film about a hard-working, God-fearing businessman who just wants to live within his family’s budget and appreciates the freedoms his forefathers procured for him.
As Sowell puts it in his book Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One: Politics offers attractive solutions but economics can offer only trade-offs…Economics cannot answer all of your questions. It can only make you aware of the need to ask them.
Well, fortunately for us, mankind has been asking economic questions for millennia, and those interested enough to seek for answers (and wise enough to discern them) have found many unavoidable truths. The United States of America, blessedly, has applied some of the best of those answers and truths in its on-going attempt to “form a more perfect union.” Last week in The Economics of Mere Conservatism: Part 1, I teased six of the most important answers (scarcity, property rights, division of labor, competition, rule of law, and a need for religion and morality among the citizenry). We have succeeded where others have failed because of these things.
Today we move from the birds-eye view of Economics in Part I and descend to the on-the-ground facts that ground free enterprise in reality instead of just theory; truth instead of emotion.
What follows are brief descriptions of the six things you must know, and be able to explain, should you hope to identify yourself as a proponent of the free market system that has enabled the United States of America to become the freest, most prosperous civilization in the history of the planet.
1. Scarcity- We live in a finite world. There is only so much of everything. This doesn’t simply pertain to oil or diamonds or beach-front property or even Kanye West’s talents. There are only so many hours in the days, people who can drive a 3-wood (and Cadillac SUV) like Tiger Woods, and jobs you can work at the same time. There are only so many people born to rich families who waste their un-deserved good luck, just as not everyone born into poverty overcomes great odds to play a piano like Ray Charles.
The miraculous nature of the human mind is such that we can apply our Creator-endowed talents to natural resources in order to produce many things that we would otherwise be lacking. But even to what we produce or engineer there is a limit to the amount of money we have to use to buy all of those equally limited goods or services.
Because scarcity is a reality, the world we live in is a world of trade-offs. This means decision-making abilities are paramount, and experience, although not infallible, becomes a prized asset. We all have to make value judgments every day about which products we want/need to buy, how much we will work, where we will live, and whom we will give charity to.
Some Left-of-Center ideologies would prefer to make most of your decisions for you, but then a society quickly learns how scarce things like freedom and liberty are in this world.
2. Private Property (Property Rights)- The term “private property” can conjure up images of a foreboding “No Trespassing” sign in a Scooby-Doo cartoon. In a sense, this is completely fair and accurate, for “private property” essentially means that an individual owns something to the exclusivity of others. Or in other words, it’s yours and no one else has claim to it unless you say so. (So stay out, you meddling kids.) The alternative to being able to (legally) own something that someone else cannot take or use without your consent is tyranny. It is collectivism, socialism, and communism.
Despite admittedly boiling down centuries of meaningful thought and discourse on the matter, so much of the modern disagreement over the importance of “private property” can be explained by the differences in worldview between two particular people: the Brit John Locke (17th century) and the Frenchman Jean-Jacques Rousseau (18th century).
The constitutional and cultural fascination with personal freedom and liberty that is uniquely American comes from the school of Locke. Building upon the Judeo-Christian belief that man is created “in God’s image”, Locke maintained that while we all enter the world with the same “natural rights”, the individual could (and should) claim ownership over something as simple as a piece of fruit they themselves climbed a tree to pick.
In his Second Treatise on Government, Locke states:
God gave the world to men in common; but since he gave it them for their benefit, and the greatest conveniences of life they were capable to draw from it, it cannot be supposed He meant it should always remain common and uncultivated. He gave it to the use of the industrious and rational, and labor was to be his title to it.
This is a very basic and simple concept: If a man works, he should be compensated. If he buys, he should own. If he owns, then someone else cannot take.
But some are not happy with that kind of set-up. Jean-Jaques Rousseau did not care for the accent mark of mankind’s history to be put over the individual and his or her rights. Rousseau believed that in order for a society to truly progress, individuals needed to forfeit their claims to natural rights, individual liberty, and the entire concept of private property. He taught that man derived his purpose from the collective.
From this type of thinking we get socialism, Marxism, and leaders like Hugo Chavez.
Private property, and the property rights that logically spring forth from it, is the basis of economic, political, and religious freedom. It gives the individual a vested interest, a meaningful stake, in the world, nation, state, town, and neighborhood around him. It creates incentives to work harder, save more, and spend wisely. To deny that human beings are hard-wired to respond to incentives is counter-intuitive and a key reason for why Left-of-Center thinking is inherently flawed.
3. Division of Labor- In the past, a farmer and his family would have to produce for themselves nearly everything they needed to survive. Other than the occasional 4-mile horseback ride to borrow a cup of sugar from the neighboring farm to make those Johnny Cakes your brother Zebedee loved so very much, families relied on what they could make or grow, and the lack of technology, transportation, and communication prevented Americans from effectively maximizing their time, resources and talents.
Whereas Joe, Jim, and Jack used to have to each grow their own corn, milk their own cows, and raise their own hogs for bacon, it became more sensible (and cost effective) for Joe (who lived for tilling the fields) to grow corn, and Jim (who raved about his cows) to focus on dairy-related products, and Jack (who never met a BLT he didn’t love) to raise himself some pigs. That is “Division of Labor”, or "specialization", in a nutshell.
I think it is fairly obvious how much more effective and productive this way of doing things is as compared to the “self-sufficient” farms of centuries past, or the centrally-controlled planning systems of Soviet Russia, but I’m not sure most people appreciate just how important Division of Labor is to their own lives. Although not everyone gets the job of their dreams (see: scarcity), the fact that human beings can even theoretically pursue the career they want is a direct result of the fact that you do not have to churn your own I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter or extract the Guava for your herbal shampoo. Think about it. I barely tolerate having to dress myself in the morning. I cherish Division of Labor.
4. Competition- When you combine scarcity with property rights and division of labor you eventually arrive at “Competition.” When a man decides to become a dentist, he has chosen a profession that will require him to be reliant upon other people to produce his food, clothes, and shelter (Division of Labor). The dentist is able to purchase the goods and services he wants and needs because the fruits of his labor (i.e. clean teeth, root canals, etc.) were rewarded with compensation from his patients and he has exclusive claim to said compensation (Property Rights). His patients came to him because there are only so many people who choose to be dentists (Scarcity).
But while there are many dentists listed in the Yellow Pages, his patients chose his office because he was either better or cheaper than the dentist down the street. This is Competition. It is as natural as fish in water or syringes in Mark McGwire’s back-side. Competition breeds invention and innovation. Competition, in its proper legal and moral context (more on this in a second), is necessary for human beings to achieve their full potential in the marketplace of goods, services, and ideas. Please understand that I’m not advocating the “Gordon Gekko” cut-throat, self-indulgent caricature of competition that unfortunately exists in any system that offers personal freedom.
Competition is what makes sports worth watching. It’s what spurs bio-chemists to create a life-saving medicine quicker than the “other guy.” It’s what keeps people on their toes and from growing complacent and indifferent in their work (a hallmark of communist societies). If everyone won, if the entire world was run like a grade school’s Field Day Awards Ceremony, you can rest assured you wouldn’t be reading this essay on your iPhone right now.
But there is an even more important benefit of competition to consider: de-centralization of power. People hate monopolies in business, but often don’t know why. The reason monopolies are almost always a bad thing is because they leave the consumer with no options or recourse if they are unsatisfied with the good or service the monopoly provides. The same idea rings true in terms of how powerful a government becomes. When everyone is an employee of the “State”, when a federal government knows the people have to come to them for everything, freedom disintegrates.
5. Rule of Law- Without law and order, economics, like most everything else in a society, is chaos. If I cannot trust that the local government will do what it can to protect me from burglars, my habits will change (or my address will). If I cannot trust the state government to enforce the laws the legislature has voted into law, I have no way to gauge the impact zoning laws will have on my business. If the federal government cannot be trusted to protect me from foreign invaders, I will spend less time working and more time at a target practice range.
Private property is meaningless if it cannot be protected and legally enforced and recognized. If I produce pencils in my factory, but I cannot rely on the government to enforce a broken contract between me and my lumber supplier, I will not keep the factory open and all my employees lose their job. If I invest my money in an institution that is, unbeknownst to me, buying bad loans that are subsidized by the federal government (via Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae), I lose my shirt and never trust the market again. No one wins.
Everything is dependent upon the rule of law. Our “law”, at a very basic, foundational level, is the Constitution. The Founders envisioned a republican democracy (as opposed to a straight democracy and “mob rule”), with a limited and de-centralized government. It should come as no surprise to any of us that as both political parties have wandered off the Constitution’s reservation; we’ve seen the economy grow more and more volatile. A significant reason for this is that Americans involved in the private sector cannot rely upon the public sector (our government) to abide by the same “rules” year-to-year.
Economist Milton Friedman explained it as follows:
Just after the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union collapsed, I used to be asked a lot: "What do these ex-communist states have to do in order to become market economies?" And I used to say: "You can describe that in three words: privatize, privatize, privatize." But, I was wrong. That wasn't enough. The example of Russia shows that. Russia privatized but in a way that created private monopolies-private centralized economic controls that replaced government's centralized controls. It turns out that the rule of law is probably more basic than privatization. Privatization is meaningless if you don't have the rule of law. What does it mean to privatize if you do not have security of property, if you can't use your property as you want to?
For the college student returning from a semester abroad in a poorer country than their own, the reason your adopted homeland isn’t better off usually has little to do with the price of Italian beef in Chicago and everything to do with the rampant, unfettered corruption at every level of that country’s government. Will every country have the advantages and wealth that the United States has? Of course not. But does Costa Rica or Ghana or a former member of the Eastern Bloc have to remain a slave to 3rd world-like conditions? Absolutely not. The rule of law, and the protection our military affords us, is the thing that enables prosperity to flourish. Throwing money at the problems other nations will only exacerbate the problem if it is not coordinated with the implementation of stable governments.
But, you ask, what about human nature and the fact that people, even in free, safe America, will always look for ways to circumvent the law?
I’m so glad you brought that up.
6. Morality and Religion- It is in this sixth and final category where Mere Conservatism parts with the secular-progressive thought of modern liberal Democrats in the media and academia, and stands with the Founding Fathers (and their innumerable influences). Many people would be thrilled to support the first five concepts I’ve described already, but stop short when discussions of morality and religion enter the equation. The problem with stopping short is that you end up denying the one thing that really can be proven about religious, Judeo-Christian teachings: sin and the fallen state of mankind.
As I explained in the Theology of Mere Conservatism, the often unpleasant realities of this world mandate we impose constraints on ourselves, and when necessary and appropriate, on one another. In a relatively free society such as our own, unless the citizens are accountable to something higher than their government, you will end up with either anarchy or tyranny. Too little constraint will bring anarchy; too much, tyranny. The Founding Fathers, even those only nominally religious, understood that an immoral and irreligious country was a doomed country.
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” –John Adams
"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." -Alexander Hamilton
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God?” -Thomas Jefferson
“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” -James Madison
If such quotes come as a shock to you, relax: you’re a normal American and likely a product of the public school system where the entirety of the history you learned consisted of Hiroshima, Jim Crowe, and the economic salvation FDR offered to a beleaguered nation that had been abused by capitalism.
My purpose, and the quotes I’ve used to help supplement it, is not to castigate the non-religious among us, but simply to clarify what values underpin our national identity. That identity is one of political, religious, and economic freedom. You cannot separate the three, and you cannot truly experience any of them without a citizenry predominantly comprised of moral and religious people. Values matter, and you’ve got to be able to define and explain those values if you hope to maintain them for future generations. It is my opinion that “You are a collection of randomly-gathered protoplasm” doesn’t have the same effect as “You are fearfully and wonderfully made by a Creator” when attempting to explain to a young person why they should care about the rule of law or property rights.
And so we come to the end of my description of what "The Economics of Mere Conservatism" entails. If you’ve read this far, you at the very least recognize the importance of engaging ideas and thinking through what it is you believe, and why you believe it. There is more to learn, more specifics to grasp, and I would suggest as a jumping off point from here that you familiarize yourself with the “Invisible Hand” theory 18th century philosopher-economist Adam Smith developed in his classic Wealth of Nations.
Economics is an exciting, multi-faceted topic, with endless sub-sets of concepts and ideas, but what I hope you take away from this piece is the general outline of what one means when they use the term “free market conservative” to describe themselves.
If Americans don’t begin to think more seriously and substantively about economic matters, others will do our thinking for us. Are you comfortable any longer with that set-up; with trusting politicians and bureaucrats to make decisions in your best interest? Does anyone really believe that the economic crisis we find ourselves in is the result of George W. Bush’s “dumb” accent and Dick Cheney’s sullen demeanor? Or equally as silly a notion that Barack “How Organized Was My Community” Obama and “Fighting” Joe Biden have “fixed” thing by spending more in one year than their predecessors’ previous four?
Develop a set of criteria by which you can judge everything from an economic policy touted by a politician to a seemingly attractive loan offered by a bank. If you aren’t reading contemporary economists such as Thomas Sowell (Stanford’s Hoover Institution) Arthur Brooks (American Enterprise Institute) and Walter E. Williams (George Mason University), if you aren’t even loosely familiar with the prolific ideas espoused in Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose and F.A. Hayek’s Road to Serfdom, you are less wise than you might otherwise be. There are great minds and articulate thinkers out there, providing intellectual ammunition for the cultural battle currently (and perpetually) being fought over the type of economy and government we will have over the next 100 years.
Read. Study. Pay attention. Teach yourself so you can teach your kids.
Freedom and liberty, the kinds Americans have generally enjoyed for more than two centuries, are at stake.
The Economics of Mere Conservatism: Part I
By: R.J. Moeller
Back in November of last year I began publishing essays here at A Voice in the Wilderness under the “Mere Conservatism” heading. My intentions in formulating and disseminating Mere Conservatism are simple: I want to explain the core tenets of conservatism, as well as the thinking behind them. We’ve learned liberalism from liberals in our schools, universities, and media, but rarely do we have the opportunity to learn what conservatism truly is from actual conservatives.
Here's an example of someone doing just that:
The process of learning what constitutes Mere Conservatism involves analyzing the socio-political world around us through the three intellectual lenses of Theology, History, and Economics. I’ve already written essays on Theology and History, so today we close out the trio of clarification pieces with a treatment of Economics. In Part I here below, I will explain what underlies a Mere Conservative‘s conclusions about economics, and in Part II next week, I will explain in more detail what specific, free market conclusions this Mere Conservative has come to.
Part I - How we think about economics
Part II - What we think about economics
But to start us all off on the right foot and same page, I quote now from Fredric Bastiat’s The Law:
We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life – physical, intellectual, and moral life. But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.
Life, faculties, production – in other words, individuality, liberty, and property – this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.
In these two paragraphs, Bastiat masterfully melded his own views on theology, history, and economics into one glorious commentary on the human condition, and our duties as Creator-endowed beings in a fallen world. A significant part of what it means to be human is on display when our “marvelous faculties” combine with “natural resources” to create goods, services, and property. This is the beginning of Economics.
Economics, it has been said, is a way of thinking. Whether you realize it or not, Economics is a part of your worldview and life philosophy. It impacts and influences nearly every part of your daily life. It is so much more than numbers and charts and long-run aggregate demand curves being drawn on a chalkboard as you sleep-walk your way through freshmen year of college. It touches where you work, live, and worship. It impacts your bank account, the prosperity of your nation, and the ability of charities to help the needy. Economics touches everything.
If you’re looking for a basic, academic definition, I defer to the insights of Dr. Samuel Gregg of the conservative, free market think-tank, The Acton Institute, who says, “Economics is the study of how free persons choose to cooperate through voluntary exchanges to satisfy their own and others’ needs in light of the reality of scarce resources.”
Fair enough. But before I learn all the jargon, terminology and data involved in Economics, I need to begin formulating a strategy for what faculties I will draw upon to analyze the things I learn. How does one approach an issue as broad and diverse as Economics? What is the best plan of attack for the average, concerned citizen who wants to move beyond high school English teacher talking points about how “greedy” all businesses are (and, conversely, how benevolent all government programs could be if we only spent more on them) to get to the heart of the economic matter?
I believe the following formula not only helps one to think through matters of Economics, but will be a tremendous aid in thinking through many important issues of life.
Economics = Math + Morality + Experience
There are two categories that must be distinguished when discussing Economics. The first is the “Math” side of things, where numbers, statistics, charts, and trends come into play. This is the realm of what can be called “economic theory.” As Dr. Walter E. Williams of George Mason University’s School of Economics explains in his book Liberty Versus the Tyranny of Socialism, economic theory deals with normative, or objective, questions and answers. Discovering where tax dollars are spent by the federal government is an objective task. Insisting that tax dollars would be best spent on welfare or national security is a subjective claim. So keep in mind that the “Math” part of my equation deals with economic theory, and the statistical, quantifiable side of things.
On the opposite end of the spectrum is the second category: “Morality”. It is here where we factor in such things as: personal beliefs about God, mankind’s purpose on this earth, distinctions of “right and wrong”, and political ideology. Here is where our subjective views of life, love, God and politics can (and should) find a home. Here we say “The room should be longer” instead of “The room is 20’ X 20’”.
What we want to be true is often much more important to us than what is true. What is true is often not an easy sell to voters if you are a politician trying to get elected. We all hope that the two line up, that what we believe and what is best are one in the same, and I believe in the case of free market conservatism they do; but anyone who claims that their personal convictions about the existence of God or the nature of “good and evil” does not impact their understanding of Economics is not being honest with you, or is not being honest with themselves.
Straddling the two extremes of what constitutes my Economics equation is “Experience.” We all live and breathe and work and die on the same planet, but our personal experiences as cognizant creatures are just that: personal. We are uniquely created. This isn’t by mistake, either. Our input, our unique perspective and our talents are what make a free society (and economy) work, and work well.
We learn facts (“Math”), we are convinced of what is right and what is wrong (“Morality”), but until something can be felt, can be experienced, it is difficult for human beings to grasp an idea’s true, full meaning.
But experience is a double-edged sword. The things you know from your life are facts to you, but something as simple as a hazy memory about a particular event or a misinterpreted gesture between friends can fundamentally alter the “facts” of your experiences. Sometimes we don’t learn anything from our experiences, or worse still, learn the wrong thing.
Perhaps your dad was a union worker and your idealized notion of what it was like back in the “good old days” influences how you vote, when in reality he had been coerced into joining a union and resented the fact that his union’s strong-arm tactics led the company he worked for to re-locate factory jobs to Mexico. 
Or maybe you grew up in a cozy suburban town enjoying the benefits the child of a successful entrepreneur enjoys, and instead of being appropriately grateful for the type of economic system that could produce such wealth and comfort, you ended up resenting what you’d been given and began supporting far-Left, progressive economic policies that punish hard work and success by “spreading the wealth around.”
Experience can aid both “Math” and “Morality”, but it can also distort them. We can tend to rely solely on experience because it is the only thing that falls right in our lap just by waking up and living every day. The truth is – you need all three. You need all three to interact in your heart, mind, and day-to-day life.
But for free market capitalism to entrench itself in the hearts and minds of Americans, ultimately you need to provide people with some concrete, specific ideas that they can really know for themselves (and then can impart on to others). You need to move from the abstract to the tangible, to what people know.
Let me give you one quick example of how this Mere Conservative processes an economic issue using my “Math + Morality + Experience” equation. Let us suppose that an American president actually said out loud that the best and quickest course of action to “fix” a broken economy is to spend money we don’t have on health care reform most people don’t want. My train of thought goes like this:
We are already in staggering debt as a nation, and the idea that we can add more than 30 million people to any system and end up with better, cheaper results does not add up (Math). It is not the job of the American government to run something as massive as health care, and for other moral and religious reasons I feel that families, charities, and churches are the primary groups that should be helping the needy (Morality). The experiences of life, and the wisdom I’ve soaked in from those I love, trust, and respect, confirm that while reform is most certainly needed in our health care system, we need reform away from government involvement and towards free market solutions, more consumer choice, and tort reform (Experience).
There are six specific points that create the intellectual framework for the Economics of Mere Conservatism. These six points are what I consider to be concrete realities of this world. These six ideas and concepts are the starting point for any future analysis of economic issues done here at A Voice in the Wilderness.
They are: scarcity, private property, division of labor, competition, law and order, and religion and morality.
I will explain each of these in “The Economics of Mere Conservatism: Part II” next week.
Until then, watch this:
(for Part II of the Economics of Mere Conservatism, click here)
A Speech To Remember To Forget
by: R.J. Moeller
President Barack Obama gave his first (of no more than 4) State Of The Union address Wednesday evening. Primarily because he has given more than 100 speeches in only one year, fewer people watched The One give his first SOTU than did watch the much-maligned George W. Bush give his last. Obama's speech was nearly 90 minutes, more than 7,000 words long, and full of surprises.
The biggest surprise had to be that the president sounded largely committed to forging ahead with policy initiatives such as Cap-and-Trade and health care reform that have sparked the bi-partisan back-lashes we've seen since the town hall meetings of August 2009.
I've read and re-read the transcript of the SOTU a few times now, and here are some of my thoughts on a lack-luster performance.
-------------------
After dispensing with the customary pleasantries, the first thing that stood out to me was this sentence here:
It's tempting to look back on these moments and assume that our progress was inevitable -- that America was always destined to succeed...And despite all our divisions and disagreements; our hesitations and our fears; America prevailed because we chose to move forward as one nation, as one people.
'Tis true, Mr. President, that many Americans take their freedom and prosperity for granted. In fact, I'd say that this ingratitude and total lack of awareness is one of the most glaring shortcomings of our modern society (and education system). But what he, and most progressive-Left politicians, almost never want to accept, let alone proclaim, is that the two primary causes of our success as a nation have been military conquests and free market economics. (Not welfare entitlements or same-sex marriage ballot initiatives.)
If you are serious about teaching the history of this nation, you must include the good with the bad. It hasn't been all racism and Jim Crowe. It hasn't been all government intervention saving the poor, huddling masses from the exploits of monopolistic fat-cats. It hasn't been a secular, "Get your Church away from my State", mentality that gave the American people their moral clarity and fortitude to win wars and overcome domestic tragedies.
This is a Judeo-Christian, free market, liberty-loving, hard-working, government-mistrusting nation. This is a God-Family-Country (and in that order) nation. This is a Center-Right nation. That doesn't mean atheistic or liberal or progressive-Left citizens are less patriotic. It simply means that the ideology that informs their view of the world hasn't been emblematic of our story. We've succeeded where others have failed because of our ideas, ideals, and values. I believe Dennis Prager explains those values best:
Moving on, the president made what I presume was an unintended critique of high tax rates:
This recession has also compounded the burdens that America's families have been dealing with for decades -- the burden of working harder and longer for less; of being unable to save enough to retire or help kids with college.
So what is the solution to this problem, Mr. President? Is it really more government intervention? Isn't the reason people pay so much of their income to their state and federal governments that their state and federal governments tax them so much? You're solutions all involve more government intervention, which all require more tax dollars to pay for them, which means everyone has to work more than four months into the calendar year to afford those taxes.
Oh, and taxes impact everyone, not just those "rich" people who make $250,000...I mean, $200,000...I mean "whatever arbitrary number Axelrod or Gibbs blurts out in staff meeting that morning".
If Wal-Mart gets taxed because Barbara Boxer or Barney Frank or Charlie Rangel has it in for them, Wal-Mart's prices go up and their customers make up the difference. This is how business works. I know it was tough to learn about the inner-workings of a business when the closest you've ever been to one is standing outside with a bull-horn demanding free stuff for the community you were currently organizing, but this is how the rest of us "little people" you insist you are helping live.
Continuing with the speech, Obama then added:
For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don't understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded but hard work on Main Street isn't; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems. They are tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know we can't afford it. Not now.
This entire paragraph is, how shall I say - claptrap. The "change" we need (and want) is away from reckless spending, higher taxes, and looming inflation...and towards fiscal responsibility, political accountability, and legislative transparency.
Anyone want to make the case that any of those three increased this past year?
I'd also like to take this moment to officially declare the "Wall Street to Main Street" metaphor the most trite, over-used, brain-dead phrase in the English language. Both sides of the political aisle are guilty of indulging in its usage. Stop. Please. Seriously. We get it. Some people look and live like the Monopoly guy, monocle and all, while others are hobos with nothing to wear for clothes but a barrel with two straps holding it in place.
Also, the call to stop with all the "partisanship" from the most partisan, polarizing figure in the country rings deaf on any sane ear. His administration has been defiant in their implementation of Chicago-style intimidation tactics. The leaders in both houses of congress have blocked GOP participation in any of the meetings about health care reform. Democrats have had overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate all year and could have done whatever they wanted without a single Republican.
Scott Brown didn't win Barney Frank's district in Massachusetts because voters wanted to send a message to Republicans that they better start making nice with President Obama. Spare me. Elections have consequences, remember?
The GOP certainly doesn't have to say "no" to everything Democrats want to do. Just all the bad ideas.
When I ran for president, I promised I wouldn't just do what was popular -- I would do what was necessary. And if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today. More businesses would certainly have closed. More homes would have surely been lost.
First off, President Bush was the one to sign TARP in to law. There is still disagreement, even among conservatives, as to whether or not TARP was a good thing, but everyone knows Bush deserves the credit or blame for it. What President Obama did was allocate another nearly $800 billion for what became known as the Stimulus Package. This is an entirely different animal altogether.
The Stimulus was Keynesian Economics at its "finest." Obama believes that the government can spend its way out of a recession. Math and numbers and history all have something to say about that, but where as TARP funds are almost all required to be paid back (as many already have been...with interest), the Stimulus funds will never be recouped by the financier of them (see: you, the taxpayer).
The White House continues to make its case that it saved 2 million (or was it 3 million) jobs and that things would have been worse had Obama not acted and saved the economy. How do you prove a job was saved? What is the standard used to decide that? How do we trust an administration that got caught manipulating the figures of jobs created by the Stimulus?
The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act. That's right -- the Recovery Act, also known as the Stimulus Bill. Economists on the left and the right say that this bill has helped save jobs and avert disaster. But you don't have to take their word for it.
Translation: I don't have any sources (outside of New York Times columnists) to corroborate my claim that everyone thinks the Stimulus was a smashing success...so just trust me on this one, guys.
That is why jobs must be our number one focus in 2010, and that is why I am calling for a new jobs bill tonight. Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America's businesses. But government can create the conditions necessary for businesses to expand and hire more workers.
False.
On second thought, I take that back. The conditions the government can create to help businesses flourish are ones in which they are nowhere to be found. Protect us abroad. Enforce the laws at home. Keep out of things you don't understand and have no Constitutional authority to involve yourself with.
From the day I took office, I have been told that addressing our larger challenges is too ambitious -- that such efforts would be too contentious, that our political system is too gridlocked, and that we should just put things on hold for awhile. For those who make these claims, I have one simple question: How long should we wait? How long should America put its future on hold?
You spent an entire year essentially on one issue (health care). No one wanted it, and people showed up to vote in liberal states to prove it to you.
How long are you going to wait to start cutting out the waste and fraud you said could pay for your ambitious plans? How long until REAL spending freezes are enacted? How long did it take you to make a decision on sending troops to Afghanistan? How long are the lines at the airport going to have to get before we start focusing the profiling done on Muslim males between the ages of 18-35, and not Grandma Mema?
After droning on about other various issues, the president finally addressed his disastrous attempts to bring socialized medicine to this country.
This is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, this process left most Americans wondering "what's in it for me?"
So you see, the real reason Obamacare isn't the law of the land right now is that you dolts didn't understand his 100+ speeches explaining health care reform. Plus those lobbyists (a.k.a. people who came out for town hall meetings and Tea Party rallies) obstructed the majestic view of government-run health care for the rest of us.
Obama takes no responsibility for proposing something no one wanted or wants, rather, he feels bad he wasn't seen and heard more. Yeesh!
Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it's time to try something new. To do that, we have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of dollars right now. We face a deficit of trust -- deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap we must take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; and to give our people the government they deserve.
It's more than a "credibility gap", Mr. President. We absolutely need the government for certain, specific duties to be discharged. (See: Constitution). You promised a "new kind of politics" during your 2008 campaign. Where is any of that? Why didn't you make Pelosi and Reid put ALL of the health care debates on C-SPAN? Why didn't you see to it that bills be placed on-line for at least 5 days before being voted on so the public can scour them?
Excuse me if I don't believe that anything is going to actually change. I hope and pray it does, but enough talk. Do it. Change things. How can we trust our government with big things when they can't even follow through on these little promises.
To quote someone both of us respect, Mr. President:
His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. (Matthew 25:23)
There were parts that I appreciated in the SOTU Address. I give President Obama all the credit in the world for even just suggesting that nuclear power and drilling at home are legitimate options to help bring costs of energy down.
I enjoyed hearing a liberal Democrat talk about American values being great, but as I said earlier, the key questions are "What are those values?" and "Where did they come from?" He was spot-on in identifying the cyncicism and angst people have towards government, but he is incapable of accepting the notion that people don't just dislike the pony-tails Big Sister has given them; they want the federal government out of their hair altogether.
-----------------
There's much more that could, and perhaps, should, be said about the so-so speech President Obama gave Wednesday evening, but I'll leave it at this for now. Go read George Will or Peggy Noonan or Jonah Goldberg for more commentary.
I'd love to hear your reflections and thoughts, so please join in the conversation by clicking on the "Comments" link below.
It's going to be a fun year, so get informed and get involved.
Scott Brown, Obamacare, and Progress
What does it all mean?
by: R.J. Moeller
The election of Scott Brown to Ted Kennedy’s US Senate seat last Tuesday night was monumental and historic. It effectively nailed the political coffin shut on Obamacare, and hopefully will force both parties to open a real, meaningful dialogue about tort reform, allowing insurance to be bought and sold across state lines, and making sure no tax dollars are ever allocated for abortions.
But while senator-elect Brown’s ascendancy to power in the most liberal state in the union was near-miraculous, it did not happen by mistake. His being the 41st vote against Obamacare is not the real story here. His becoming the 41st vote, and the political, cultural, and ideological realities that led to it, is the story. Scott Brown is the effect, not the cause, of Obamacare’s demise.
How did we get here? How did the “agent of change” fail so miserably at convincing John and Jane Taxpayer that his cradle-to-grave health care entitlements were worth their support?
Health care reform, the kind championed by President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, has not passed into law for three main reasons. The first is simple and fairly obvious to even the casual observer: congress is a quagmire of good intentions, bad ideas, and inefficiency. The legislative branch of the federal government does not have to be so ineffective, but it is, and has been for some time. Even when a political party controls both houses of congress with dominating majorities, and has an ideologically-driven president in the White House, little (of beneficial importance) ever gets accomplished. The inability of Republicans to pass Social Security reform in 2005 and now Democrats to pass health care reform in 2009 should tell you all you need to know about the frustratingly arduous nature of the legislative process.
It must be stated, however, that the difficultly most modern congresses experience in trying to enact laws is not a complete accident. Our system of government was set up to make radical, sweeping change, the likes of which we were promised in 2008 on the presidential campaign trail, easier said than done. No one, not even a Saul Alinsky disciple and community organizer from the most corrupt political machine on the planet, was meant to be able to change the law with 140 characters (or less) on Twitter.
But I propose that what we’ve witnessed in the past year, in terms of finger-pointing, wasted time and amateur-hour politics from the White House and leadership on Capitol Hill, is not exactly what James Madison and John Jay had in mind when they were penning the Federalist Papers. There is all the difference in the world between the purposely complex constitutional structure our Founders constructed and the hapless, bumbling, self-aggrandizing process recent congresses have engaged in as they try to stuff every piece of legislative pork in to their bureaucratically bloated traps.
The second reason Obamacare is not already the law of the land is also fairly simple and obvious: corruption. On a scale I’ve never seen in my admittedly short life, the leading Democrats in Washington have engaged in the most blatant, reckless, and unapologetic political chicanery imaginable. Now don’t get me wrong, corruption and back-room wheeling-and-dealing is a bi-partisan sport in congress. Corruption follows power and as we stray further and further from the original intent of the constitution (effective, de-centralized, limited government), both sides of the political aisle is home to exploitative “representatives” of the people.
But, and to stay with the sports analogy, Democrats for the past year have single-handedly taken political bribery and conspiracy from previous “weekend warrior” levels to their current elite, Olympic ones. It’s been easier to get straight answers from Mark McGuire about steroids than it has been from Harry Reid about health care or Nancy Pelosi about cap-and-trade.
The third and final reason health care reform did not pass in 2009, and likely is dead in 2010, is the American public’s lack of desire to pursue the brand of “progress” the president fervently believes in and has pushed for his entire adult life. It took a year of town hall meetings, Tea Party rallies, talk radio pleading, off-year election campaigning, and an over-bearing and condescending mainstream media to wake enough Americans up to the fact that the people running things in their federal government have a vision for this country’s economic and cultural future that doesn’t match up to their own.
G.K. Chesterton once wrote, “Progress by its very name indicates a direction; and the moment we are in the least doubtful about the direction, we become in the same degree doubtful about the progress.” President Obama, although on-record as being an un-waveringly committed proponent of socialized medicine and an eventual federal takeover of the health care system, repeatedly insisted that he only wanted to tweak the system. Over time, it became clear even to Barney Frank’s constituents that the House and Senate bills wouldn’t need 2,000 pages if it were only a “tweak” Democrats had in mind.
President Obama made his case for health care reform all about change, progress, and compassion for those who are un-insured. The fact that more than 80% of the people he was talking to already have and like their insurance and health care never mattered to David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, and Barack Obama. It cannot be stressed enough: these men, and progressive liberals everywhere, believe health care is a right and must be provided to citizens by their government.
This is their idea of progress, their end-goal in the “change” game. The same cannot be said for the overwhelming majority of Americans. Although many initially responded to the deceptively alluring calls for “progress”, when it became abundantly clear this fall and winter that the costs (both literal and figurative) were higher than the president said they would be, voters and taxpayers became wary of the direction they were being led. The president moved the field goal posts so many times, and his counterparts in the House and Senate made so many shady deals to buy votes, that in the end even voters in a state (Massachusetts) that has a version of what Obama promises will work nationally rejected his plan.
Americans want to take care of themselves, their families, and their neighbors. We are a generous and kind nation on so many important levels. Americans also all want costs in health care to go down. They want doctors to be able to operate without such a pervasive fear of litigation for the smallest and most innocent of infractions or mistakes. We want the best and the brightest to pursue medicine and we want to remain the nation that both rich and poor from other nations take risks and incur great personal costs to get to.
But there were, and are, ways of systematically healing our sick (but not terminal) health care system without fundamentally changing it forever. More importantly, there are certain things more important than so-called “free stuff” from Big Brother. There are ideals and values that permeate the national consciousness that do not line up with the Euro-socialist ideology of liberal Democrats.
You can dress those points of conflict up; you can find someone with impeccable oratory skills to attempt to reconcile them to the masses; you can use things like race or gender as shields to deflect those who point them out; but ultimately the truth of these differences and discrepancies will shine through and the people will see what the deeper battle is about. They will see what choices they truly do face.
C.S. Lewis said that we would all act differently towards our fellow man if we saw them not for the temporal, physical creatures they are now, but for the spiritual, eternal creatures they will be some day. He wrote that every individual is getting closer to heaven or closer to hell with every thought, every act, every decision and every moment of every day. There are unique times in our life where the veil of life’s complexities and distractions is lifted up and we see things for what they truly are. These are times when profound insights can be obtained and long-lasting, far-reaching decisions can be made.
A nation is nothing more than a collection of individuals, and from time to time, the veil of petty politics and cable news talking-points and emotions-based thinking is lifted long enough for us to get a good look at both ourselves and at those who supposedly represent us. This is that time. Scott Brown isn’t the answer to political malfeasance and dereliction of duty on Capitol Hill. Defeating Obamacare won’t fix health care. Bad loans won’t stop being offered and accepted with another “Czar” appointment. It starts with us, with the individuals who comprise this blessedly free and prosperous nation that care about its soul, its history, and its principles.
What is the direction we want to head as a country? What should “progress” really look like for a Constitution-adhering people? What are our real goals for the economy, for education, and for society? Do we have the intellectual honesty and courage to candidly share those goals with our fellow citizens (especially if we desire to lead them in elected office), or will we continue to mask them with language we think people can more easily stomach?
Are we becoming a freer, more responsible nation (Heaven); or will we go the way of dying Europe, silently into that quiet night, as we trade liberty for the false security and temporary comfort of collectivism (Hell)?
2009: The Year in Pictures (and music)
Enjoy this humble montage of the most interesting people and stories of the past year.
Merry Christmas From My Fam To Yours
My 10 year old sister, Mackenzie Marilyn Moeller, put together this lovely re-creation of our family:
Avatar: Imperialistic capitalists ruin everything
Tell me if you’ve heard this one before? A guy walks into a movie theater to see the most expensive movie ever made…
Ok, so I don’t have a witty joke to share here, but I do have some words of advice for you before you see the newly released James Cameron epic Avatar. (For more in-depth reviews, click here.)
First, leave all of your positive feelings about free market capitalism and American exceptionalism at the door.
Forget the fact that the dazzling movie you will be seeing is made with technology made possible by the competitive, productive, liberty-soaked forces of the same free market enterprise that James Cameron will be caricaturing, distorting, and criticizing. Also try and forget that only in a society fueled and funded by free market capitalism can people afford movie tickets north of $10 to watch capitalism disparaged at every animated turn.
The bad guys in Avatar are of course the soul-less, penny-pinching stooges of some intergalactic corporation named RDA. The list of stooges includes mercenary soldiers who, I'm sure purely by coincidence, throughout the movie employ Bush/Cheney-like terminology and strategy. These Blackwater wannabe's work for RDA partly for the paycheck, but mostly for the chance to murder the indigenous population of the planet they’re working on.
That planet is named Pandora, the indigenous people are the Na'vi, and the highly-prized natural resource the evil corporation is on Pandora to drill for (unobtainium) just happens to be right under the Na'vi’s ancestral home.
Second, don’t learn anything about the history of the United States above what you were taught in public school history and English classes before venturing off to the enchanted world of Avatar.
In fact, you’d do well to first go rent and watch both Pocahontas and Fern Gully as refresher courses of all the “facts” you accumulated in K-12th regarding the historical and sociological narratives of Native Americans over the past 400 years. Just remember that all people who have “lived off the land”, worshiped a pantheon of pantheistic gods, and used inferior technology and weaponry than their enemies were not only more interesting than you and your civilization – they were probably better human beings as well.
Third, repeat to yourself (at least 30 times before entering the theater), “Style over substance. Style over substance.” This will be super easy to remember, because it was this type of thinking that gave us our current Commander-in-Chief.
Fourth, in order to prepare for the awkwardness of cliché-ridden dialogue throughout the entire movie, ask your friend who is breaking up with his or her significant other to let you sit in on their “calling it quits” conversation. Building up good wincing muscle endurance would be ideal prior to subjecting yourself to a script that not even Al Gore could get the world to believe was worth saving.
Lastly, and with all of that said, Avatar is a visually stunning film. Some of the battle scenes are unlike almost anything I’ve ever seen. For all of its many plot and thematic faults, by the end of the movie I was entertained and pretty happy I saw it. There is minimal cursing, one brief scene of sensuality, and most of the violence was, in my mind at least, negated by the fact that the people engaging in it are 8’ tall blue dudes (and dudettes).
Warning: I did not get to see Avatar on IMAX, but have heard that it really makes it worth the 2 hours and 40 minutes to invest (at least) $12 for the bigger screen and sound.
Let the rest of us know what you thought of Avatar by clicking “Comments” below and sharing your take on it.
Watermelon Surprise in Copenhagen
The Global Climate Summit is Green on the outside, but Red where it counts
By: R.J. Moeller
Let us suppose that you find yourself walking through Millennium Park in downtown Chicago and you happen upon a homeless woman asking for money. Because you are an American, and a member of the most generous, charitable society on the planet, you reach for your wallet to lend a helping monetary hand to the poor lady. But alas, you quickly remember that you only have $6.97 on your person, the precise amount for a Chipotle chicken burrito, which was to be your lunch shortly thereafter.
A walk to the ATM is out of the question, but you feel intense compassion for this destitute soul. What to do?
As luck would have it, a well-dressed, presumably wealthy, businessman just happens to be walking past at that very moment. You call his attention to the plight of the homeless woman, and ask for a 5-spot to give to her. The businessman, assuming you to be high or insane, shakes his head “no” and sets his sights on high-tailing it out of there as fast as his Prada-covered feet will allow.
But your good intentions to help this woman compel you to grab the businessman by the collar and threaten the ability of his brains to stay inside his cranium, and insist that he cough up $10 now for being a greedy Scrooge. He concedes, you give the money to the woman, and later that day, tell your friends how miserly all businessman are.
There is no moral defense for what you did. There is also no serious difference between what you did in my mock scenario and what liberals, Leftists, socialists, and Marxists all hold as the basic, core tenet of their collectivist ideology.
The coerced re-distribution of wealth by a governing body comprised of “experts”, “elites”, and “czars” is as central to the belief system and worldview of Barack Obama as it was to Karl Marx, H.G. Wells, FDR, and Lyndon Baines Johnson. The only reason my claims here might sound shocking to some of you is because we’ve been raised to put a higher premium on what we mean, what we intend, rather than what we actually do.
Coercive force and totalitarian control is inherent among Leftist ideology, but always it is presented as a necessary requisite for benevolence, charity, and security.
Nowhere is this more clearly on display than at the current United Nations’ climate summit in Copenhagen, Denmark. The world’s Left believes in its heart of hearts that man-made global warming will cause irrevocable destruction to the planet anywhere in the next 1-50 years, and they have gathered to concoct ways to “combat” the “evil” of climate change.
The only thing these people meeting in Denmark believe in more than global warming is that the only solution to such a problem is massive re-distribution of wealth from richer to poorer nations, overseen by global governing bodies with centralized power willingly ceded from all member nations. The jump from “Hey, temperatures are showing a different trend than we thought 30 years ago when we scientists of the world said the planet was in danger of a global cooling” to “The United States is to blame for global warming and the world’s economy should now be overseen by U.N. bureaucrats” is quite a leap (of faith).
Almost as if they had the solution in their minds (or hearts) before they knew the problem…
Of course free market conservatives and global warming skeptics from all corners of the planet are dismissed both for their lack of faith in the prophetic teachings of The Goreacle, and for their “ridiculous” accusations that the progressive liberals of the world are trumping up the threat of cataclysmic disaster from global warming because of their desire to run the global economy from the EU in Brussels and the U.N. building in Manhattan.
But is it really so far-fetched to:
A) Point to the fact the climate has been changing since before mankind walked the earth
B) Note that hundreds of reputable scientists have come out against the “evidence” of global warming, which bases its theories almost entirely on computer models that already presume global warming theories to be true
C) Ask questions about emails that have surfaced from the United Nations’ leading climate research facility indicating that scientists all over the world have been manipulating the data to support their claims that global warming is real
D) Conclude that since progressive liberals want power to be centralized in the hands of a fewer and fewer “experts” and “elites” in literally every issue that we face today, they might want the same when it comes to global warming
All of these, it seems to me, are not only fair points to be raised, but necessary points to address for any person serious about intellectual honesty. One side or the other is really wrong here.
Jumping quickly back to my “forced charity for the homeless woman’s sake” analogy, what if it were proven that the problem (i.e. the woman’s homeless state) you felt so strongly about was purposely fabricated to get your money and rile your emotions? If you were presented with documented evidence the next day after you took the businessman’s money that the homeless woman “kind of” lied and actually lives in a condo on The Gold Coast and funds her luxurious lifestyle by preying upon the good intentions and guilt of suburban suckers, would anyone in their right mind say, “But she might have been homeless, and my intentions matter more to me than my money and freedom, and certainly more than the money and freedom of others (like that stingy businessman)”?
We know for a fact that many of the leading scientists working on global warming studies have been fabricating data and silencing dissenting voices. We also know that the means by which climate change enthusiasts hope to “fix” the climate’s problems are thoroughly totalitarian.
Here’s what Professor Tim Flannery, an Australian and one of the leading global warming scientists and advocates in the world, recently said about the goals of U.N. climate summit:
“We all too often mistake the nature of those negotiations in Copenhagen. We think of them as being concerned with some sort of environmental treaty. That is far from the case. The negotiations now ongoing toward the Copenhagen agreement are in effect diplomacy at the most profound global level. They deal with every aspect of our life and they will influence every aspect of our life, our economy, our society.”
Okay, but that’s coming from some Aussie most of us have never heard of. Who cares, right? What do the more benign, sophisticated, Prius-driving American environmentalists have to say?
“Right now we say we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to green eco-capitalism where at least we're not fast-tracking the destruction of the whole planet. Will that be enough? No, it won't be enough. We want to go beyond the systems of exploitation and oppression altogether. But, that's a process and I think that what's so great about the movement that is beginning to emerge is that the crisis is so severe in terms of joblessness, violence and now ecological threats that people are willing to be both pragmatic and visionary. So the green economy will start off as a small subset and we are going to push it and push it and push it until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society."
Those are the Orwellian words of one Van Jones, the “Green Czar” tapped by President Barack Obama to oversee the development of a “Green” economy. Unfortunately for everyone involved, Mr. Jones was exposed as the Marxist he most certainly and proudly is, and was asked to resign in September. But his dream lives on in Copenhagen, as well as in the halls of congress, the White House, and, it seems, the EPA.
What’s that? Oh, you didn’t hear what the Environmental Protection Agency did just this past week?
As Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer explains:
“On the day Copenhagen opened, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claimed jurisdiction over the regulation of carbon emissions by declaring them an "endangerment" to human health. Since we operate an overwhelmingly carbon-based economy, the EPA will be regulating practically everything. No institution that emits more than 250 tons of CO2 a year will fall outside EPA control. This means over a million building complexes, hospitals, plants, schools, businesses and similar enterprises. (The EPA proposes regulating emissions only above 25,000 tons, but it has no such authority.) Not since the creation of the Internal Revenue Service has a federal agency been given more intrusive power over every aspect of economic life.”
When it comes to running massive government programs, entitlements, and bureaucracies, the Left in the United States is always comfortable with a handful of individuals manning the reigns. President Obama and his wife proclaimed in the Democrat primaries and on the campaign trail in 2008 that Barack was the only one who could transform America for the better. The president, once elected, said that the Timothy Geitner was “the only man” who could fix the economy. Joe Biden had the foreign policy tact and experience no one else could touch. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, presuming to know more than most, and knowing less than nearly all, have repeatedly barred Republicans and dissenting Democrats and Independents from key meetings over the gargantuan health care “reform” being proposed despite the fact that we have no money to spend as a nation.
And yet when it comes to your own life, to your own finances, to your own families, to your own diet, to your own desire to leave a clean planet for your children, progressive liberals have no confidence whatsoever that the average American is capable of satisfactorily completing such duties.
The conference in Copenhagen is only the latest in an un-ending polluted stream of collectivist thought that began at the tower of Babel and will be with us until time itself ends. This ideology denies the Lord Acton maxim “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely”, and trades the undeniably risky prospect of giving Creator-endowed freemen and women the ability to live their own lives for an empty, Utopian promise of a shared, assured, slow decline into mediocrity (and possibly even poverty). We told the Soviets for decades that centralized, bloated bureaucracies do not work. We were right, but not right enough to convince ourselves that avoiding the same fate might require avoiding their policies and systems of governance.
To veil its inherent totalitarian insinuations, the line of “progressive” thinking the modern liberal Democrat employs today is wrapped in a pretty bow (i.e. “saving the planet”, “saving the children”, “social justice”) in the hopes that enough American voters will be swayed by their heart instead of being guided by their head. The result is a nation comprised of people whose gut reaction to terms like “private property” and “free market capitalism” is “evil” or “fascist.” These same people, perhaps even you, yourself, hear terms such as “government-owned General Motors” or “teacher union” or “carbon tax” and the only words that come to mind are “compassion” and “fairness.”
The time for thoughtless “compassion” and “justice” and “change” is coming to an end. Or perhaps I ought to say that if it doesn’t come to an end, we soon will.
The “Watermelon Surprise” of modern environmentalist activism is that the same Red instincts of Marx, Lenin, Castro, and Che Guevara lie at the heart of a superficially Green exterior. The fact that so many well-intentioned people have been caught up in the ruse only makes it that much sadder.
What is “Mere Conservatism”?
The basic ideas, ideals, and values that generally define and characterize the central tenets of what today might be termed "modern conservative thought."
We believe that a proper understanding of history, economics, and theology leads to certain conclusions. Many of these are the same conclusions our Founding Fathers arrived at in constructing a "more perfect union."
All ideas and opinions are welcome; not all are correct.
Mere Conservatism Links:
Econ Part I | Econ Part II
Intro | Theology | History
RJ Speaking at Acton 2010
Rudy the Dog barks at "change"
RJ's Social Network
Wall Street Journal
Blogroll
- Acton Power Blog
- Andrew Belle
- 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)
- Hugh Hewitt
- Jihad Watch
- Michael Medved
- Milton Friedman
- Mom's blog
- My LOST blog
- Only Good Movies
- Patriots Corner
- Say NO to ACORN
- 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
News/Politics
- Drudge Report
- Fact Check
- Fox News
- Hot Air
- Jerusalem Post
- National Review
- Newt Gingrich
- Nolan Chart
- Real Clear Politics
- The Savage Nation
- Townhall
- Washington Times
- Weekly Standard
Thinktanks
- Acton Institute
- American Enterprise Institute
- Cato Institute
- Center For Health Transformation
- Heritage Foundation
Archives
Categories
- Afhganistan (1)
- Baseball (1)
- Books (4)
- Climate Change (7)
- Cultural Issues – Linked Article (155)
- Economics – Linked Article (76)
- Education (8)
- Election News (5)
- Entertainment News (10)
- Environment Issues (12)
- Foreign Policy (10)
- Health Care (32)
- Historical – Linked Article (12)
- Hollyweird (1)
- Immigration (2)
- Iran (5)
- Iraq – Linked Article (2)
- Islam (8)
- Israel – Linked Article (1)
- Liberal Commentary (2)
- Liberty and Freedom (21)
- Local – Chicago (1)
- Mainstream Media Update (18)
- Mere Conservatism (3)
- Movie Review (9)
- Music (1)
- Original Columns (84)
- Pakistan (1)
- Political Scandals (25)
- Politics – Linked Article (151)
- Quotes and Sayings (18)
- Race Issues (11)
- Religion (2)
- Sports (2)
- Supreme Court (4)
- Taliban (1)
- Terrorism – Linked Article (13)
- Uncategorized (599)
- United Nations Stuff (1)