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.

The Thinking Class

One interesting piece of the "right vs left" story is that right-leaning media outlets tend to do better than equivalent left-leaning ones. Now, with the political parties roughly the same size and the balance of power always tipping back and forth, why is the market for conservative ideas bigger?

For example, Fox News viewership is 4x-5x that of MSNBC. Rush Limbaugh couldn't even see Air America from his lofty ratings perch. Political non-fiction by conservatives (Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin) outsell their liberal counterparts by a significant margin.

Look at Al Gore's Current TV ... Keith Olbermann's show recently reported a whopping 46,000 viewers. More than that attended a recent Paul McCartney concert in Cincinnati and Olbermann is getting paid $10M per year to host a nationally televised show.

Why is this? Why do liberals not turn out in force to hear the ideals and philosophy of the left? But when it's time to donate or vote, they run neck and neck with conservatives?

Perhaps we can investigate this by breaking down the demographics of the Democratic Party. Let's consider the profiles of groups that vote largely Democratic:

• Government workers: 23 million
• Labor/Union: 14 million
• People receiving govt assistance in some form: approx 60 million (there are 40 million receiving food stamps)

Looking at groups voting largely Republican:

• Evangelical Christians (anti-abortion): 40 million
• Military: 3 million

If we assume these groups are predominately single issue voters, then we can see that Democrats have an edge on "guaranteed" votes on election day. These people are not going to be swayed by ideas or debate. History shows that approximately 70% of these groups will vote for the party that gives them what they want.

It's also interesting that about 20% of the US population describe themselves as liberal while about twice that associate with a conservative ideology. These are philosophical points of view, cutting across many issues and not likely to be a single issue voter.

My conclusion is this: there are a lot more people interested in conservative ideas than are interested in liberal ideas and the data support this. The fact that the Democrats successfully compete with Republicans on election day is attributable to their alignment with certain single issue voters who want more government, more power to organized labor and more government handouts.

These people don't care about ideas. They don't care if what is happening is morally right or if such policies overall do damage to the country. They just want their check every month.

Why buy a book?

The Sky is Falling, Again

In 1957, the Soviet Union proved the superiority of communism over capitalism with the successful launch of Sputnik, the first man-made object to orbit the earth. To many in this country, the USA was falling behind in science and math and drastic government action was needed. To some extent they were right: the field of battle was moving into space and if we were to defend liberty, we must go there also. Soon, DARPA and NASA were formed.

Around this time, Castro and Guevara overthrew the government of Cuba and we were told that their investments in social services, particularly medicine, would put the US to shame. Drastic and immediate government action was needed to shore up capitalism's weaknesses.

In the late 1980s, the fear spread that the Japanese (and to a lesser extent, Germany) would soon take over the world, thanks to a complete retooling of their manufacturing infrastructure after WWII. There were calls for the nationalization of several industries in order to perform the capital investments necessary to compete.

In the 1990s, it was the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to Mexico and elsewhere that would create a "giant sucking sound", leaving the US with nothing but minimum wage jobs. NAFTA was to be killed and trade barriers erected to prevent massive unemployment.

Today it's China. Now the left is telling me that the Chinese are smarter and more nimble because they are planned and controlled centrally. They apparently benefit from having only one political party, avoiding partisan bickering and gridlock. When something needs to be done, they do it. Snazzy airports, high speed trains, focused high-tech training programs, government subsidies of strategic businesses ... you name it, the Chinese do it better.

The US is a fading nation and large government action is needed to save us.

Rinse.

Repeat.

Liberals, who seem never to tire of being wrong, panic easily and don't hesitate to recommend a deal with the devil when it looks like a storm may be coming. They spout on about how we should emulate China, but seem oblivious to what might go wrong if we give government the right to control all aspects of our lives just so we can skip the tedious process of convincing people to do things voluntarily.

In the 15 years or so since China started waking up to the idea of using their vast (mostly human) resources to create wealth, they have gone from a 3rd world country to the 2nd biggest economy. That's pretty good. They've done it without a lot of violence. Also good. But, the human rights violations are uncountable and there is significant danger of a bloody attempt at revolution, one that could either liberate a billion people or see the communists tighten their grip. China is on the rise. Let's talk in 100 years to determine whether they succeeded.

And if China does succeed, it won't come at the expense of the US. Such a rising tide will raise all ships.

I'll take a free nation where capitalism and individual liberty prevail. The US has remained a great nation, truly exceptional, for generations. This could change, but only if we put aside our values.

What does Tuesday mean? Maybe a little.

With the 2010 mid-term election about a week away, the rhetoric is running at a fever pitch. Every election is important and this one is no exception. But this election is but a tree in a big forest.

I have seen it written many times that the US is 20% liberal, 40% conservative and 30% somewhere in the middle. I assume 10% are kids or surfer dudes.

The 2008 election was clearly as much or more a reaction (away from Bush) as it was an action (toward Obama). This year's result may be equal, but opposite. If 40% of the voters are truly conservative, they are unavoidably seething over what has happened in Washington the last 2 years and wield considerable power when provoked.

Liberals seem to be disappointed also, but that's only because there are still some components of our lives that remain private and untouched by government.

1994 made Bill Clinton a moderate. Against the will of his own party, he signed Welfare Reform, he sent troops in the former Yugoslavia to defend the Muslim population and, if his presidency was to have any lasting effect, he was forced to work with a Republican Congress. Nothing can make Barack Obama a moderate, but perhaps he will have no choice but to behave like one after next Tuesday.

Regarding the rhetoric on the campaign trail, the other day VP Biden said the following words in a speech:

“Every single great idea that has marked the 21st century, the 20th century and the 19th century has required government vision and government incentive."

 Now I understand that Joe Biden is crazy, but I don't think this was off the cuff. This was actually written down, approved by staff and read off a teleprompter. They mean it. Or, more precisely, they want us to believe it so they pretend that they mean it.

I suppose I could spend the next few paragraphs citing examples and offering a philosophical foundation for not only why this isn't true, but also why it simply cannot be true. However, there are some things that one really should not have to argue.

The fact that Biden was not laughed off stage, the fact that people remained in the audience, the fact that this statement could actually be uttered on a national stage does not speak well of our mindset in 2010. Sure there will be a minor course correction on Tuesday, but it won't cure the disease.

It's clear that liberals have institutionalized certain segments of our population and made them less dynamic as a result. Urban poor (mostly black), labor unions, government workers and many universities can't imagine life without government sponsorship. In the case of urban poor, a generation or two of kids have grown up with enough empirical data to confirm that one's place in life is fixed and that sustenance arrives in the form of a government check every week, independent of your actions at school or in society.

But Biden's statement starts to leak into the productive, commercial segment of the citizenry. Innovation? It's a government thing. Investment in the future? Not without Uncle Sam. Placement of available capital? We'll take care of that. Central planning of the economy has been tried uncounted times throughout history and has failed reliably. Are we really taking seriously a man who promotes the idea here in the USA?

Why do political leaders espouse such things? Because it expands their power. But why do their followers lap it up?

That is a complete and total mystery to me.