Conservative Daily August 29th 2011
August 28th, 2011Snow White and the Seven Dwarves
August 12th, 2011I have not read any analysis from last night because I wanted to come to the issue fresh this morning and write from what is a “raw” perspective without input. I may change my perspective after reading other analysis — and I say that because I think I have already changed my view somewhat by sleeping on it.
1. The Fox News Channel team was the biggest loser of the night. What a terrible job they did. Bret Baier was possibly the best of the group, but he was supposed to be moderating and didn’t. The other panelists and especially Chris Wallace were out of control. More about Wallace later on in the note.
2. I did not want Newt Gingrich to do well because I do not like him personally, but he came off as the best of the group. He seemed angry, but I suspect that was because of the first question proposed to him by Chris Wallace. Wallace, with his usual sneer, asked about Gingrich’ campaign team basically deserting him. By the way, this is the indication to me that Rick Perry would be entering the race. But that is strictly an aside. Wallace asked Gingrich about being “undisciplined in campaigning and at last report a million dollars in debt. How do you respond to people who say that your campaign has been a mess so far?” Gingrich rightly pointed out that what Wallace was asking was not an issue or political philosophy question, but a “gotcha” question. Newt’s response was classic: “I took seriously Bret’s injunction to put aside talking points and I wish you would put aside the ‘gotcha’ questions.” The crowd loved it and it did put silly Chris Wallace in his right place.
Gingrich went on in his answer to that question to point out that Ronald Reagan had 13 senior staff resign on the morning of the New Hampshire primary and his campaign manager then laid off 100 people because he did not have the money to pay them. He then explained that he intends to run on ideas. Gingrich has got some good ideas, by the way. Ideas that will work tomorrow morning. He also has a track record of getting legislation through a divided congress (Democrat Senate) and an opposition party president. His Republican House of Representatives passed welfare reform three times before Bill Clinton finally signed it. Gingrich is not a “Tea Party Conservative” by any stretch of the imagination. He is a pragmatist — but he is not a status quo pragmatist. He is a futurist with ideas, unlike anyone else who appeared on the stage last night.
3. Michelle Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty were more concerned about having a “spitting” contest than they were in solving the difficulties in which the nation is presently involved. It would be nice to see as much energy focused on President Obama as either of them had focused on the other last night. Yes, I understand that they are running against each other for the nomination of their party. So why are they this intent on internecine squabbles that will strengthen the Democrats more than anyone else? They must remember that today’s sound bites are tomorrow’s loss.
One question was asked of Bachmann about submitting to her husband if she were to become president. I’ve seen all the comments referring to the “sexist” question, but while it was perhaps another “gotcha” question, it was not sexist in the context of Bachmann’s professed bio sheet. She has stated that she did not originally want to go to law school, but was encouraged to do so by her husband. Because she is a “submissive wife” in her words, she went to law school. In other words, she did what her husband wanted her to do rather than what she wanted to do. That is the whole point of her story or it has no point at all. So the question basically came down to one in that context of whether Americans would be voting for her or for her husband for POTUS. It would have been a sexist question to ask “what makes you think a woman can be president?” It was not sexist to ask how, in the context of her own bio information, she would make decisions while at the same time remaining a “submissive wife” (in her own words). She gave a nice answer about love and mutual respect, but she did not address the question. Perhaps it should not have been asked, but then maybe she should eliminate from her bio the part about being a “submissive wife” too.
3. Romney seemed to accomplish what a frontrunner must accomplish. He did not make any terrible mistakes. He answered the questions about Obromneycare — not to my satisfaction — but he did go toe to toe with Pawlenty on it. He also said he would sign a bill repealing Obamacare.
4. John Huntsman was in the wrong debate. He does have executive experience like Romney, but there is no appreciable difference between Romney and Huntsman except that it’s Romney’s “turn” just as it was McCain’s “turn” in 2008.
5. Ron Paul showed up with his usual rants. Agree or disagree, Ron Paul has been a consistent Austrian in economics and libertarian in foreign policy for years. He is, for all intents and purposes, an isolationist. I think he does make some good points as far as the US being the world’s policeman and pulling back from what has become almost or fully Imperial foreign policy. But his solutions do not address reality and even when he talks loud and waves his arms he still doesn’t have good solutions. If I were going to vote for someone strictly on his political economics it would be Ron Paul. But Dr. Paul brings a lot of other baggage with him that frankly I think would be disastrous and even infantile if we attempted to implement it.
6. Rick Santorum did not get enough questions in my opinion. Bret let some of the other participants harangue one another because it makes for good television. But it came from Santorum’s time. And then when Santorum asked for the same courtesy that others had been extended (speaking past the bell) it was not given to him. Santorum is a man with experience and could be a good president. Maybe he will be one day. But he did not shine on the stage. Santorum’s best moment of the night, in my opinion was probably his worst in the opinion of many. He explained that we ought not to make an exception in our abortion laws for the children of rape. Their lives also have a right to be protected. Santorum, if his views were to become law, would impose criminal sanctions on doctors who perform abortions for any reason, though he did leave a small crack for the life of the mother being at stake.
7. I understand Herman Cain makes an excellent pizza and has brought a couple of corporations back from the brink of bankruptcy. He probably has some good ideas. Whether they are good or not, they are thought out. He has three step programs for this and four elements that must be included in that. It kind of reminded me of pragmatic preachers. But he simply does not have the chops yet to go up against the folks he has to go against. Keep him in mind for VP or for a future run.
8. Rick Perry was not there, but is expected to announce his candidacy Saturday at the Red State gathering in South Carolina. It will be a welcome addition. I am a Texas Republican — something almost unheard of before John Tower. I think Rick Perry has done a good job as governor of Texas. Does that mean he will make a good president? So far we don’t even know if it will make him a good candidate. He has made some mistakes as governor of Texas. Most of those mistakes he has admitted and has reversed where possible. Something I think some folks don’t realize is the complexity of Texas politics. Our constitution is one of the longest in the country and originally dates back to Reconstruction. That will all play out. Let me say one thing and you can take this as a positive or a negative as you wish: Rick Perry is not George Bush and they don’t even like each other. Perry is an Aggie. ‘Nuff said.
The joke is that they were going to name a street in Austin after Rick Perry but couldn’t because nobody crosses Rick Perry and gets away with it.
Saul Alinsky on “Compromise”
August 11th, 2011“But to the organizer, ‘compromise’ is a key and beautiful word. It is always present in the pragmatics of operation. It is making the deal, getting that vital breather, usually the victory. If you start with nothing, demand 100 per cent, then compromise for 30 per cent, you’re 30 per cent ahead.
“A free and open society is an ongoing conflict, interrupted periodically by compromises — which then become the start for the continuation of the conflict, compromise, and on ad infinitum. Control of power is based upon compromise.”
Rules for Radicals
For those who may not already have figured it out, when the White House uses the term “compromise,” what it means is “move things in our direction.” As Alinsky indicated above, compromise can mean taxing only 30% of your savings instead of all of it. Or taxing at a 30% rate instead of 100%. But make no mistake, compromise is the result of a demand. In the recent debt negotiations the Republicans in the House failed miserably because they did not seem to understand this basic point. As a result they were compromising with one another and moving the ball toward the WH goal before the WH even showed up on the field for the game.
We don’t just need better conservatives in Congress — we need people who understand how the game should be played and not merely how it has been played in the past. We have a new breed in the WH today and we need a new breed in the Congress to deal with him. When one begins to negotiate by fearing the result of walking away from the table, he can never win. The first rule — yes, the very first rule — of negotiating is that one can never be afraid to walk away from the table. If the negotiator fears the result of walking away from negotiations he has lost already.
President Obama and Eric Cantor seemed to understand that. On at least two occasions someone did walk away. Rep. Eric Cantor walked away at one point and President Obama walked away at another. This is not a sign of childishness nor a sign of refusal to negotiate. It is a sign of refusal to compromise. And when you have something to lose and nothing to gain, compromise is not a virtue. It is stupid.
Steps to Revolution
August 5th, 2011Not a revolution in the sense of violent overthrow, but what people since Aristotle have referred to as “Revolution within the form.” Such revolution requires either real or manufactured or imagined crises.
1. Capture the seat of government
2. Seize economic power
3. Mobilize the forces of hatred
4. Foment class hatred and envy
5. Liquidate or shackle private industry
6. Make individuals dependent upon government
7. Reduce or eliminate all forms of rival authority
8. Sustain popular faith in an unlimited public debt
9. Make government itself the only or primary capitalist such that the initiative in business will pass from private enterprise to the all-powerful state.
Elevators, Automatic Tellers, and The Curse of Machinery
July 30th, 2011One of my favorite things about our current president, Barack Obama, is the fact that he makes such a marvelous foil for teaching about … well, almost anything virtuous. Last month our fearless leader maintained that Automatic Tellers (also called ATMs) made a significant contribution to unemployment. This delusion of the left, that machines on balance create unemployment, has been destroyed repeatedly. But whenever there is prolonged unemployment statists love to trot the complaint back out again. This fallacy is also the basis of many labor union complaints. A generation ago elevators still used elevator operators. I know that must seem strange to a generation or three which has never known anything but push-button elevators, but it is true. As recently as the 1950s, many buildings were still using elevator operators. Think of all the elevator operators who were displaced and put on the bread lines by those automatic elevators that anyone who can reach the buttons and read numerals would be able to operate. “Automation” is simply another word for technological advance.
When I was growing up in the 1940s and 50s, there were still railroads not associated with Amtrack or Conrail. But it was obvious even then that the railroads were about to go broke because of a practice called “featherbedding.” The unions required firemen (stokers) on diesel locomotives. The railroads were not alone, but it was an American industry that would soon be nationalized in order to protect union jobs. If this is beginning to sound familiar, just read on. In 1970 Nobel-laureate Gunnar Myrdal proposed in The Challenge of World Poverty that labor-saving machines should not be introduced into third world countries on the grounds that they decrease the demand for labor (by definition, right?). So reductio ad absurdem the best way to create jobs in a lifeless economy would be to make all labor as unproductive and inefficient as possible. The Luddites were right!
Henry Hazlett, in Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics
When a manufacturer installs machinery to make his workers more productive, it requires an outlay of capital (money) on the part of the owner with a possible loss of jobs (reduction in labor). The manufacturer does this in order to increase profits. Profits will not increase immediately, because the new machinery must first “pay for itself.” However, over time the machinery will pay for itself due to increased output with the same amount of labor or the same output with a decreased amount of labor. Once the machinery has “paid for itself,” the increased output or decreased labor will result in increased profit for the manufacturer. The capitalist will use his increased profit in one of three ways, or in some combination of the three: He will use the increased profits to buy more manufacturing machinery, or he will invest in some other industry, or he will increase his own consumption. No matter which of these he does, he will increase employment.
The manufacturer (and his thousands or millions of stock holders) now has profits he did not have before investing in the machinery. Now every dollar he has saved by reducing his labor force he indirectly pays back into wages of other workers. He does this by the wages of the workers needed to make his new machinery, or to the workers in the other industry, or to the makers of whatever consumer goods he buys for himself and his family. But that is not all. The manufacturer can also afford to sell his goods cheaper than his competitors since his cost of production has less labor in it. Thus if he makes blue-sky widgets, more consumers will be able to afford blue-sky widgets than formerly were able to. Profits will not be as great per unit because part of the savings in labor cost is passed along to the consumer. But there will be greater overall profit as more and more people find they would like to have a blue-sky widget at the lower prices. It will take a smaller labor force to manufacture blue-sky widgets, but more people will have blue-sky widgets as a result.
But suppose the price drop from $150 to $100 per blue-sky widget did not actually result in more people buying them? There would still be a benefit because the people who would have purchased the blue-sky widgets anyway, now have an extra $50 in their pockets to spend on something else, or to save, or to invest in the stock of the blue-sky widget company. On net and over time, machines do not throw people out of work, but actually build a larger economy that will then employ yet more people.
It was recently reported that Apple Computer now has more reserve cash ($73 Billion) than does the United States treasury. But one must ask, “how much reserve cash did Apple Computer have on hand 50 years ago?” The answer is absolutely none. Apple Computer did not exist 50 years ago. But notice that Apple Computer makes virtually 100% of its profit from manufacturing what one may regard as technologically labor-saving devices. Mac and iPhones and iPads were non-existent a few years ago. The same may be said, of course, for Dell and Microsoft and many other companies who specialize in labor saving devices. If you are reading this blog on a computer and not a piece of paper, ask yourself if you really believe we have put lumberjacks out of work. No, we have participated in a huge industry that employs not thousands, but millions, of workers every day. Here is a paragraph from Hazlitt’s work referenced above:
[Classical economists] in taking the long view and the broad view, they sometimes neglected to take also the short view and the narrow view. They were too often inclined to minimize or forget altogether the immediate effects of developments on special groups. We have seen, for example, that many of the English stocking knitters suffered real tragedies as a result of the introduction of the new stocking frames, one of the earliest inventions of the Industrial Revolution.
But such facts and their modern counterparts have led some writers to the opposite extreme of looking only at the immediate effects on certain groups. Joe Smith is thrown out of a job by the introduction of some machine. “Keep your eye on Joe Smith,” these writers insist. “Never lose track of Joe Smith.” But what they then proceed to do is to keep their eyes only on Joe Smith and to forget Tom Jones, who has just got a new job in making the new machine, and Ted Brown, who has just got a job operating one, and Daisy Miller, who can now buy a coat for half what it used to cost her. And because they think only of Joe Smith, they end by advocating reactionary and nonsensical policies.
In Hazlitt’s example, Joe Smith lost the investment he had in his own training including the years of experience it took him to reach his level of skill in a lost profession. His former employer had also lost his investment in outdated manufacturing processes. Both the old machinery and the old skills became obsolete. Joe Smith is not alone. But the manufacturer adapted to new circumstances or he went out of business. In either case Joe Smith may well have lost his job. In a compassionate society there will be opportunities for Joe either to increase his skills to the point where he can reenter the work force or to acquire new skills so he can enter the workforce. Unemployment compensation, however, is a very bad choice both for Joe and for the economy as a whole. The reasons for that go beyond the scope of this blog entry, but perhaps we can examine that subject in a future post.
What Scripture Says About Our Debt Crisis
July 28th, 2011The realm of money and debt is not morally neutral. If God has spoken on an issue, neither is it one of indifference. But this admission raises another question and that is whether God has spoken on this particular issue. In Scripture, neither creditor nor debtor lives free from moral obligation.
Today we live in a world of long-term debt. God’s Word indicates that this is not the way he intends us to live. Rather, he has created us for freedom; and that includes freedom from debt. Americans have moved from being “cottage entrepreneurs” to wage slaves with the industrial revolution. Subsequent generations, especially since World War 2, have learned to live “a dollar down and a dollar a week and you can have anything your heart desires.” Thus today we seem dedicated to long-term debt as a way of life. But it is not a way of life; it is a way of death. “There is a way that seemeth right to a man, but the ends thereof are the ways of death” (Proverbs 14:12).
For those who would follow in God’s path, debs must be limited to only six years (Deuteronomy 15:1-6, 12-18). What six years means is that in the seventh year all debts must be remitted. Debt led in Bible times to slavery to work off that debt. Today, we have something very similar. While we do not have debtor prisons (neither did ancient Israel), we do have a sort of bond-service in which a man’s paycheck earnings or a great percentage of them go to his creditors.
America spent most of its history as a lender nation rather than a debtor nation. Much of the tongue clucking that is evident today about how the government got into the 14.3 Trillion dollar mess (that is $14,300,000,000,000) that it did is coming from people who are themselves deeply bound in the morass of debt. The ability to contract long-term debt (and we are saying grandchildren today rather than children will be paying it off) is nothing but the ability one has to sell himself and his progeny into slavery. This is what Americans have done since the days of the “Great Society” and before that the “New Deal.” If the government were forced to pay for the “entitlements” programs now on the law-books of this nation by raising taxes, the tax-payers would want none of it and the idiots on the Potomac would soon be looking for honest work.
So rather than raise taxes, the government borrows the money it needs. The federal government borrows the money from the Social Security trust fund, from bonds purchasers, from T-bill purchasers, from the federal reserve system, etc. But there is a difference between the government borrowing money and your neighbor borrowing it. When your neighbor borrows money, he is placing himself and his descendants at risk. When the government borrows money, it places you and all your descendants at risk as well.
As a general rule, God tells us that we should “owe no man anything, but to love one another” (Romans 13:8). In case of extremity the Scripture regulates debt to six years or less. God warned in Proverbs 22:7, “the borrower is servant to the lender.” And he gave us an indication of the result we are seeing today in Isaiah 24:2-3, “As with the lender, so with the borrower; as with the taker of usury, so with the giver of usury to him. The land shall be utterly emptied and utterly spoiled….”
Click and get this book:The Road to Serfdom: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition
About ἀρετή
July 27th, 2011Add To Your Faith Virtue
It is not my intention to leave a profound trail of great thoughts. I’m not sure I’ve ever had one. But it is my intention to leave a trail of common sense thoughts and musings based upon what God has announced. In the context of 2 Peter 1:4 the promises of God are given to us by him who called us to glory and virtue. We normally understand the “glory” of the Christian life to be something bright and beautiful, and so it is to the eyes of the saints and of God. But the Greek word translated at 2 Peter chapter 1 as “glory” is doxa and may well refer to majesty, enhancement, fame and the like. But it may just as well refer to approval and in this context the approval of God.
Again, in 2 Peter 1, the glory and thus the promises of God, relate as well to virtue. Not some “goody-two-shoes” kind of virtue, but a manly uprightness of character. A social excellence or merit is primarily in view at 2 Peter 1. In Homer, someone who exhibited this character was deserving of recognition because of military valor or exploits — but also for other personal qualities. So this blog will attempt to draw out some modern applications regarding exceptional civic virtue.
Sadly, Christians today have taken a back-seat in the world. They have done this simply by not exhibiting the virtue necessary to take leadership roles. Christians are no longer characterized by fidelity, amiableness, compassion, concern, devotion, etc. It is my firm belief that authority flows toward responsibility and that Christians have abdicated a place of responsibility in the modern marketplace. By authority flowing toward responsibility I mean that if we would have and exercise authority in the world (dominion rightly understood), then we must first be responsible men. Here is what Peter was saying: God has called us to glory and virtue. We are given exceeding great and precious promises when we act according to that calling.
First we must escape the corruption (the impairment of integrity) that is in the world through lust (lascivious cravings). But we must go beyond escaping corruption, Peter insisted. We must give all diligence — in this case speed or haste and eagerness — to add to faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge restraint; and to restraint patience or endurance; and to endurance devoutness or piety; and to piety brotherly love; and to brotherly love charity. Peter explained that if these virtues be in us and abound we shall be neither barren nor unfruitful. Those two things may seem much alike, but the idea behind barren is that of idleness. We will be neither idle (doing nothing) nor unfruitful (accomplishing nothing).
These are great and precious promises indeed. But they are not unconditional. We must act according to our calling. The reason that much of modern Christianity has been relegated either a seat at the children’s table or no seat at all is that we have not acted according to our calling: the high calling of God to glory and virtue. It is my intention in the articles or pages or whatever blog divisions are called that will come to relate missing virtues to what is wrong in the church, in our families, in the marketplace or forum, and in our civil government. May God give me the strength and wisdom to do so.