The cult of My Team

Things could have gone very differently for Richard Nixon had only his name been Clinton.

Martha Stewart, General Petraeus, Bernie Madoff, Kenneth Lay ... simply the wrong brand.

Let's say a rich, Republican, cigar-smoking, married CEO with a philandering reputation has been accused of sexual harassment at work and is under investigation. What if during that investigation it is discovered that he is having an affair with an intern, half his age, working for him? What if then he lies about that relationship while under oath, thus committing the felony of perjury? And, to close things out, he pays the first accuser $800,000 to drop the sexual harassment suit?

The question: should that CEO lose his job?

Anyone, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican or Libertarian, is going to say "Of course ... why are we even debating it?".

But what if the CEO is a Democrat named Clinton?

Talking to Democrats back in 1998: they'll tell you it's a Republican witch hunt and that he only lied about sex and what's the big deal and it doesn't affect his ability to do his job. Nothing to see here.

Fast forward to 2016.

What if anyone - literally anyone - bypassed their company's email system and set up their own private server in their bathroom and transmitted proprietary information?

That's really all you need to know. Of course this employee should be fired. Not promoted!

(Never mind that Clinton's motivation was to avoid the prying eyes of FOIA requests during her presidential campaign, which should by itself be disqualifying.)

What allows such invulnerability? What happens when supporters become so invested that they ignore what would normally be considered crimes and misdemeanors? Are we witnessing a cult phenomenon?

I'm pretty sure we are on the Republican side. Let's call both of these candidacies what they are.

Of course, cult candidacies are unhealthy for a nation. But what causes them? Answer: emotion.

The emotion that comes from an over-reaching government. One that mismanages the Iraq war and loses popular support. One that uses a moment of one-party control to take over health care. One that encourages illegal immigration while GDP stagnates.

In other words, people get pissed and don't think straight. They just want their team to win so they can shove it in the face of their opponents.

Hate. Hillary hate. Donald hate.

It's the only explanation for supporting either of these terrible candidates.

No, Your Other Left

It's hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys these days. Well, in fairness, that's because they're all bad.

The byline today is that we're about to witness the worst case of suicide in the history of political parties. Drive down Republican Boulevard. Turn right. Now take your next right. Drive several hours on the right side of the road. Turn right again and Donald will be on your right.

Of course, Bernie is just as far to the left. Socialism is no longer a dirty word. Hell, it's even the draw. We want to be like Norway! Or Germany. Or whatever place that gives everyone free medical care and still has bread on the store shelves. Not many of those around, but stay with me.

So one would think that Bernie and Donald couldn't be more different. As much common ground as a catfish and a mountain goat.

Well, one would be wrong. They're from different parties and far from the center of each, but these gentlemen are not defined by well thought out philosophical ideals. They're defined by one simple thing: populism.

- Both claim that immigration is costing American jobs and depressing wages.

- Both are against foreign military endeavors that spill both American blood and treasure.

- Both are against free trade agreements that move manufacturing jobs overseas.

- Both draw huge crowds of angry white voters who long for the days of yesteryear.

- Both are new to the parties to which they currently belong.

Both would be horrible presidents.

Anger should not elect a leader of the free world, or any other position for that matter. It's a scary thought that it just might happen.

But the anger is real and it has 2 primary causes in my view:

1) Technology and globalization have eliminated the traditional factory jobs that so many communities were built upon. Combine that with the go-to remedy by the left, institutionalized assistance which leads to demotivation and dependency, and you get a lot of hot-under-the-blue-collar voters.

2) Barack Obama is a terrible leader. He's a smart guy with good intentions, but he lacks the intangible qualities of a great president and he generally does not respect the principles that made this country so great. Many people who aren't emotionally invested in the man see this clearly.

So people look around and see decay. They look up and see a professor going on and on about climate change. Then they hear an outsider candidate screaming and promising to turn back the clock and that message resonates. A lot of emotion that those rallies and it feels like there's a way out.

The only consolation is that Bernie and Donald seem to be splitting the angry vote and neither seem likely to be the next Hugo Chavez. 

So that's the bad news. But wait, there's worse news? Unfortunately.

The only remaining candidate is a horribly corrupt, paranoid, opportunistic, power hungry, bitter has-been who has accomplished absolutely nothing in her political life that hasn't resulted in blood on her hands and who would step over her own husband (he's often on the floor, for various reasons) to get to the White House.

In other words, your next president.

Results

Results. They're all that matter. Hurting someone with good intentions is still hurting someone. Their suffering is not lessened because you didn't mean it.

It is also important to look at not only the intended recipient of your good will, but to make sure there is no collateral damage as well. Not only are results all that matter, all results matter.

Today, we have collateral damage galore.

Let's imagine a community where a small number of people are poor, probably lacking the basic skills needed to get their lives together. They live in obvious discomfort and perhaps can't even imagine a better life. And sadly, their children, through no fault of their own, are growing up in this environment.

But for the most part the community, while not wealthy, is healthy and productive and on a decent path. The very poor represent only a tiny minority.

Now, let's throw in a liberal from a faraway place, one running for public office. This liberal politician and all of the earnest, enthusiastic liberal voters learn of these poor people and decide that since they are so well off, perhaps even wealthy, they should do something to help. And, of course, instead of setting up some sort of private voluntary charity to help, they opt for the more expedient federally funded program, forcing not only the well-intentioned liberals to contribute but also the horrible conservatives who think this whole thing is generally a bad idea.

So politicians are elected, laws are passed, funds allocated, offices established, bureaucrats hired and forms printed. Next thing we know the handful of very poor people in our village are receiving a check (or food stamps or health insurance or housing subsidies or child care credits etc.) every month. They can now put food on the table, get medicines they need. Maybe start putting resources into building a better life. 

Some poor people have been helped, some liberals feel good and no one pays much attention to this little town for a while ...

But while the liberals were patting themselves on the back, perhaps with a glass of organic chardonnay in the other hand, some disturbing things started to happen in our little town. One could say a corruption of sorts started to take root ...

The first warning sign was that the number of applicants for the federal program began to grow beyond initial expectations. Not a staggering number at the beginning, but over time a steady increase. Instead of 3% of the community receiving aid, it grew to 4% then 5% then 8% then 11%. Then 20%. Additional funds had to be allocated. The local federal office was to be expanded.

What was happening? Ask the liberals and they'll tell you that life is getting harder, there's less opportunity, we haven't invested enough in education and health care ... so of course the numbers of dependents are growing. This is what happens when we elect conservatives into office.

But this is just too simple and self-serving of an explanation. What is really happening? Are we helping those less fortunate? Or are we manufacturing them?

Charity is a dangerous thing. It brings enormous temptation to those just barely not eligible. Seeing your neighbor receiving unearned benefits makes you think. Makes you ask questions. Makes you fill out forms ... maybe even with a couple white lies sprinkled in.

What happens when this plays out over time? Even over generations? What happens when a critical mass of a community receives more government benefits than they earn at a job? Do people start to change their attitudes toward self-reliance and hard work? Does drug use spread like a cancer? Do families no longer need to stay together to make it in this hard world? Actually, is it even more lucrative not to be married?

But actually, the more pertinent question to ask today: Where is the tripping point when the original culture of the community is irretrievably lost?

Take a look at a poor, inner city black neighborhood or a poor, rural Appalachian white town and try to explain what has happened there in any other terms. Over the years, these have been the two primary targets of liberal "help". Go back 50 years and these places were poor, but their culture was intact. Families were together. The impact of drugs was minimal. There was hope. Today, it's hard to find reason for any.

Conservatives are not motivated to keep our big pile of money away from the undeserving. We're not motivated by our enjoyment of people suffering. We're not greedy. We're not heartless. But we're also not brainless. The war on poverty started in the 1960s. How's it looking?

It's time to abandon the argument that people need help and something needs to be done, therefore anything we do is good. And anyone who opposes anything is a bad person.

Yes, something needs to be done. But first, we need to stop doing such catastrophic harm.

If I were racist ...

The libertarian movement is often accused of racism. Sure, there are very few African Americans at the Tea Party rallies and there is the rare but highly visible anti-Obama racist in the crowd. And although the left has been accused of planting the occasional redneck with a fake KKK tattoo for the benefit of MSNBC's cameras, I have no doubt that at least a few of these idiots are sincere.

But what if I were really a racist? What if I wanted to hurt black people as much as possible? I'm not talking short term or minor stuff ... how can I maximize the damage generation after generation? What if my goal was to keep them out of my nice, upscale neighborhood and off my country club golf course? Keep them out of my kids' schools and out of my workplace? Not just to make sure I don't bump into them as I go about my day, but to make sure no decent white people ever bump into them.

Sounds horrible, right? It is horrible. I doubt there are many people around today who think like this, thank God.

But what if I did think like this? What if I were in a position of power? What would I do? What policies would I put in place to satisfy my twisted attitudes?

First, I would promote the idea that it's not their fault that they are suffering. I would stand up in community centers and churches and blame slavery and white people for their misfortunes. I would do my best to convince them that the cards are stacked against them and even if they do study and work hard, the white man will never give them a fair chance. I would give this narrative sympathetic airplay on cable news talk shows and in movies and TV shows.

I would put in place affirmative action and quotas, embedding in people's minds that there are a limited number of places in the mainstream world for blacks. This would fly in the face of traditional American meritocracy and give blacks the stigma of not having earned their success.

I would implement a minimum wage, reducing the number of open jobs in the world. It would also eliminate apprenticeship programs that have traditionally helped people get themselves out of poverty.

I would promote diversity and sensitivity policies that reduce workplaces to sterile, politically correct vacuums where diversity is not celebrated, but ignored for the fear of saying the wrong thing. This would have the effect of exclusion, not inclusion.

I would institutionalize welfare and medicaid to ensure that an entitlement mentality permeates every corner of poor, black culture. It would turn otherwise productive people into a dependent class as well as ensure that every new generation grows up knowing no other way of life.

I would build public housing to segregate blacks from mainstream society. This would have the added benefit of ensure the entitlement mentality touches every resident.

I would give out free stuff galore (Obamaphones!), all the while promising to give even more in the future ... just in case someone was thinking about studying or working harder.

In other words, if I were truly a racist and I wanted to appear to be helping but actually be hurting, I would adopt the policies of the left. Because what really matters is not intentions nor policies nor narratives nor what feels good ... what really matters are results.

The left has created an environment of low expectations for African Americans. This has destroyed black culture, including the family and a sense of self-reliance.

The libertarians have the same expectations of every man, regardless of color. No special treatment because none is needed. We want every child to see their parents take pride in their achievements and to strive to achieve even more.

What cannot be disputed is the current state of black quality of life. The numbers are staggering, any way you slice it, whether it be unemployment, incarceration, drug use, single parents or no parents. Yes, progress has been made in some areas, for a few. But overall, things could not be much worse.

I've often said that liberals are not evil and I do not believe they are racist. They are good intentioned and intelligent. However, they lack the wisdom to see the result of their policies. But after so many decades and so much damage, I would think they would catch on by now.

Slavery did not destroy black family and culture. Racism did not do it. This was the doing of the left, trying to help.

Story lines

There seem to be 2 main story lines in this progressive vs conservative discussion. Which one of the following fits your world view?

People have lived in misery for most of human history, oppressed by ruthless tyrants, without basic rights or freedoms. Only recently have the concepts of liberty and equality been applied by enlightened leaders, opening an era of art, science and relative peace. Today, certain people want to turn back the clock by consolidating power in the elite few who control the major corporations and financial institutions. Without government to restrain the barons of unchecked capitalism, humanity's forward progress will grind to a halt and the tyrants will again rule the day.

Holders of the above point of view tend to vote Democratic, watch MSNBC or CNN, read the New York Times, drive a hybrid and feel a little guilty when they fly on an airplane.

Or...

People have lived in misery for most of human history, oppressed by ruthless tyrants, without basic rights or freedoms. Only recently have the concepts of liberty and equal rights been applied by enlightened leaders, opening an era of art, science and relative peace. Today, certain people want to turn back the clock by consolidating power in an elite few who control government institutions. Without economic and personal liberty guaranteed for every individual, humanity's forward progress will grind to a halt and the tyrants will once again rule the day.

Holders of this point of view tend to vote Republican, watch FoxNews, read the Wall Street Journal, own a gun and feel a little guilty when they take something from the government that they have not earned.

One easy, but lazy, conclusion to draw is that both story lines are true...that the two extremes create a happy middle. Sure, very few would disagree that much progress could have been made without both a strong central government as well as motivated wealth creators in the private sector. But stopping the analysis there simplifies political philosophy to not much more than a volume knob, increasing or decreasing the amount of government. It's a good first order model, but far from complete.

Important questions should be answered, such as defining the proper role of government in society and its limitations. Before we discuss the degree to which government should be involved in something, we should decide whether it should be involved at all. And once we decide such things, we should stick with that decision no matter how tempting it might be to apply a quick fix. Government has an exclusive monopoly on the initiation of the use of force (the military and police). It's wise to create firewalls between the private sector and the public domain to defend against any future misuse of power. If history has taught us anything, it's that bad people are attracted to the job of running countries.

Of course, such analysis is a little too "black and white" for some people who will argue that a little government involvement helps everything and without which there would be chaos. The idea that government can keep the peace and defend individuals against force and fraud without "regulating" is unthinkable. Liberals sleep better knowing government is involved. This keeps conservatives awake.

There is also a vague sense that democracy itself is the defense against tyranny. If government goes "too far", we'll just vote the bad guys out of office and put in a better crop of leaders. But in practice, that only works for major transgressions. Politicians that do dozens of little things to line their own pockets, along with their cronies, tend to get reelected time after time. And how diligent are we really, as citizens, watching over our elected officials? We simply don't have the time. It would be much better to know that they don't have the authority or power to cause too much trouble in the first place.

Power must and will reside somewhere. Consolidated and centralized in a government that also has the military and police? Or widely distributed among free people making decisions every day according to their best interests, with government defending them against force and fraud? As a people, we decide by which story line we follow.

Square Peg

Mitt Romney is boring, nerdy and down to earth ... in other words, a square. He doesn't talk about halting the rise of the oceans or healing the great cultural divides. He doesn't stand in front of classical Greek columns waxing poetic while the enraptured swoon to the ground. There is no Romney Girl.

And this is exactly what we need. A calm, mature sense of humility in the face of both history and the future.

The last 2 presidencies have been anything but humble. George Bush (actually, mostly Chaney and Rumsfeld) believed that toppling Hussein would be the hard part and running Iraq afterwards would be easy. They had very little respect for their own limitations, dismantling the Iraqi political infrastructure and leaving a power vacuum in its place. The cost of this mistake was enormous, in lives, capital and opportunity. I believe to this day that Bush thought God was on his side and it would all work out if he just had faith.

Citing examples of Barack Obama's inflated sense of potency could be a full time job ... the only place he has shown restraint is foreign policy, where he has simply continued (to the letter and despite his harsh campaign rhetoric) the institutions and plans of his predecessor. But domestically there is nothing that cannot be improved by the addition of a little Obama magic. Health care, energy policy, financial regulations, the reach of the EPA, education mandates, federal investment in new technologies ... the list is endless.

India, previously, had the unfortunate distinction of being governed by the smartest, most educated leaders (many from Oxford and Harvard) while remaining among the poorest countries in the world. For decades these bright young scholars regulated everything they could touch. They micro-managed imports, exports, lending, land ownership, capital, labor ... everything. It was only starting in 1990 that India woke up to the idea that intelligence and wisdom are two very different things, embraced capitalism, repealed volumes of economic laws and started an economic boom that continues today.

It's probably too much to hope that Obama's ardent followers are embarrassed by their election night euphoria ... the dancing and tears of joy for the savior who finally arrived. It's very likely that they believe these grand plans of reshaping our country are starting to work, that we need four more years to see it through. They would all probably agree that understanding the complexities of the federal government and its effects on a $15 trillion economy is way beyond their own capacity, but our dear leader has it all figured out.

People want to hear big plans, that our leaders will solve our big problems.We don't rally around someone who tells us to be self-reliant, that there things that government should not and cannot do. No one faints when a man admits he has limitations, that he's a mere mortal.

Yep, I'm ready for a square peg. But is the presidency a round hole?

The Greatest Trick the Devil Ever Pulled ...

  
... was to convince the world he didn't exist. This is one of my favorite quotes from one of my favorite movies, The Usual Suspects. We see devils everywhere trying to pull this off, but none more successfully than the left who have somehow managed to convince much of the world that capitalism is to blame when government is the true culprit.

For example, health care. The more government gets involved with medicine, the higher the prices go. It's one of the least free markets that I can think of and there are many aspects of health care that desperately need the help of capitalism (see my blog on the subject), yet somehow all we hear is the opposite. It's as if the devils of government control, cronyism and politics were blameless.

Another great example is the 2008 collapse of the real estate market and the subsequent credit crisis, immediately followed by TARP and other government interventions. Headline after headline assured us that the blame for your underwater mortgage should be placed on Wall Street greed ... predatory lending and the repackaging and leveraging of these loans to "make a quick buck at the expense of the little guy." Sure, the government gave incentives to lenders to relax their standards so that everyone could enjoy the benefits of home ownership. And sure, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac spent dozens of billions of dollars buying up these loans, thus reducing the perceived risk of trading in them. But government's artificial manipulation of the real estate market had no measurable effect and the real evil-doer was capitalism, right?

How about black poverty? Freedom is to blame there, too ... namely the freedom to be racist. So, government needs to rise again to stamp out discrimination anywhere and everywhere. We need affirmative action, minimum wage, public housing, food stamps, welfare, social services and preferences for minority-owned businesses. Of course, we are not supposed to notice that no group has been the "beneficiary" of more government "help" than poor blacks and simultaneously no group is in worse shape. Generation after generation of blacks have now been raised believing that sustenance comes in the form of a government check instead of your own hard work. Ethnic group after ethnic group, with every skin color, have been able to find their place in the American fabric, yet capitalism and freedom are to blame for the hardships of only one of them.

(As an aside, the normal counter-argument here is that slavery was an extraordinarily deep hole for blacks to overcome, but I don't buy that argument. I used to, but not any more. Blacks were on the rise and were doing a great job of climbing the American socioeconomic ladder during the time of the civil rights movement when the left implemented all the above "help". An emergence was interrupted, in my opinion.)

And finally, the government has beautifully avoided blame for out-sourcing and offshore manufacturing. It's all the greedy companies that have shipped jobs overseas and abandoned the American worker. The ridiculously high cost of union labor (yes, our govt caused this), enormously expensive workplace regulations, health care costs (again!), corporate taxes and the threat of litigation for you name it ... none of these play a role in a company's decision to open a factory in Mexico? Believe it or not, a company would much prefer to keep their manufacturing local to their headquarters ... managing an offshore plant is a major headache and quality is likely to suffer. But when the cost difference is 5X, there's no comparison. Policy after policy has pushed production away from the US.

This list could go on and on ... farm subsidies, the high cost of college tuition, the lack of innovation in our schools, rationing of permits and business licenses, high gas prices ... it's endless. And so many people continue to buy the anti-capitalism cheer. It would be entertaining watching the clownish Occupy Wall Street crowds rage against capitalism if they weren't so typical of the left, helping the devil do his work.

But when we read the papers or watch the evening news ... poof ... he's gone.