Obama's Shameful Pandering

Here is the opening sentence in my latest post at The Objective Standard blog:

The Obama Administration is running ads throughout Pakistan condemning and apologizing for the video that allegedly sparked the anti-America riots across the Middle East, including the sacking of the U.S. consulate in Libya and the murders of the American ambassador and three other U.S. Citizens.

Read the rest of Obama's Apology vs. Responsibility Regarding the Libyan Murders.

Mitt Romney: Obama Lite

My latest post at The Objective Standard blog is up. If you want a good hint at why the Romney Republicans have been so ineffectual against the Democrats, and why an election that should be an uphill climb for Obama has him appearing to be the likely winner, read Romney vs. Romney on Coercive Wealth Redistribution.

Some Timely Advice from Ayn Rand on "How to Judge a Political Candidate”

Writing on the 1964 presidential campaign, Ayn Rand  offered this advice on “How to Judge a Political Candidate”:

If [a candidate’s] stand is mixed, we must evaluate it by asking: Will he protect freedom or destroy the last of it? Will he accelerate, delay or stop the march toward statism?

By this standard, one can see why Barry Goldwater is the best candidate in the field today.

No, he is not an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism—this is one of the contradictions in his stand. Like all of today’s political figures, he is the advocate of a mixed economy. But the difference between him and the others is this: they believe that some (undefined) element of freedom is compatible with government controls; he believes that some (undefined) government controls are compatible with freedom. Freedom is his major premise.

Rand’s advice is timely today.

It is not necessary or realistic to wait for the perfect laissez-faire capitalist ticket. We only need one that offers enough pro-freedom material to work with.

Clearly, in 2012, the Obama Democrats embody statism. The Romney/Ryan ticket is not nearly as strong for freedom as the Dems are on statism. Still, the Repubs generally lean more toward freedom, or at least a delay of statism. And Ryan is an open admirer--albeit a qualified admirer, but an admirer nonetheless--of Ayn Rand. (Note: this is not to imply that Rand would see it this way.)

Given the GOP ticket as the only viable choice for liberty advocates, we must strenuously promote the pro-freedom elements of the Republican ticket and platform, and of the party in general. And we must just as strenuously expose their anti-freedom contradictions, particularly on the issue of morality, so as to—as Craig Biddle advises—“constantly pressure them to move as far right as possible.”

On America's "Social Contract," the Source of Individual Character, and Romney's 47%

The flap over Mitt Romney's 47% comments continued, with the NJ Star-Ledger editorial board declaring that, because of that comment, Romney "can't be trusted with the presidency." They offered several choice opportunities for rebuttal activism. Here are a few excerpts, and my comments:

S-L--

The next president, whoever it is, will have to strike a tough balance. He will have to be both hard-nosed and compassionate. He will have to impose painful spending cuts, while protecting the social contract that promises a decent life for those who play by the rules.

Me:

There is not and never has been any socialist "social contract" in America. This is a devious myth dreamed up by the Left to empower government. America promises the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness and well-being, and the individual liberty to act to achieve it by productive labor and voluntary free trade with others. There is and never were any "promises of a decent life" of material benefits provided by others, only of a life free from human predators out to take what property you have earned. There was never any guarantee of an equal starting point in life, where everyone is "born on third base," or even the same base. Equal opportunity, in America's ideals, is a political, not an economic, term. It means equal legal protection of everyone's rights to live and to set and pursue his own goals.

S-L:

   “I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives,” [Romney] said.   That is the view of a man who has spent too much time cloistered among like-minded conservatives, believing in a myth they have spun about the winners and losers of this country. In this view, the rich are the virtuous job creators whose success is an outgrowth of their superior character. It is galling to hear this from a guy who was born on third base...

This reference to character could be a back-door slap at Ayn Rand. If it is, it's a misrepresentation. In any event, here is my response:

I don't know of anyone who ever said that "the rich are the virtuous job creators whose success is an outgrowth of their superior character." Superior ability and judgement? Yes, and it's true that most people who grow rich in this country create plenty of jobs along the way. But character is not measured by how much money a person makes, and I never heard of anyone who ever made that claim. It is not the amount of money that indicates superior character, but that a person makes the money he lives on. A person of virtuous character understands that he must take responsibility for himself, live by his own judgement, and understands that his own need in not a moral claim on the lives and earnings of others. The independent self-supporting man of moderate means and the man who earns a fortune are moral blood-brothers. Those who expect and demand handouts from others are moral inferiors.

S-L:

Romney misses a lot. He needs to get out more often and see that millions of Americans who receive food stamps, or college scholarships, or free health care are taking responsibility for their lives. Almost all of those getting this kind of help are either working, studying or retired. The problem is not that they lack virtue. They just don’t have much money.

There's some truth to this, even though there are a lot more parasites out there than the editors acknowledge. As Ari Armstrong notes over at The Objective Standard, "Romney is wrong in assuming that, just because someone takes government handouts, that person necessarily shares the entitlement mentality or advocates forced wealth transfers. For many Americans living under today’s rights-violating government, it is practically impossible not to receive some sort of government handout."

I left these comments:

Romney is wrong about the 47%. Many do not have an entitlement mentality. And many in the other 53% do. That's why corporate welfare exists, like the GM bailout and NJ's solar subsidy scam. The problem is that the welfare state turns honorable people into "takers." I collect Social Security "benefits," which will never match the value of what was taken from me in taxes over my 45 year working career. I'll soon be forced onto Medicare. But both programs are funded by younger workers, not the recipient's accumulated lifetime "contributions," which were funneled into some else's pockets. The best gift any senior can bestow on his grandchildren is to fight for the phaseout of both programs.

The whole welfare state is corrupt, as is any human endeavor that begins with theft. It is not the goals of these programs, but the means, that is evil. SS, Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, Pell grants--the whole un-American mish-mash--should be phased out and abolished. They violate the real American social contract--that each person owns his life, has the right to live and act upon his own judgement, keep the rewards of his own work--and that we respect each other's rights to do that. This is the very practical ideal that drew tens of millions of poor immigrants to these shores in the first 150 years after Independence, and that built this country.

I acknowledge that I am voting for Romney, because he is not Obama. But I am under no illusions. Don't expect this Republican ticket to muster the moral courage to take such an uncompromising stand against collectivism. They are watered-down welfare statists. I don't know why the editors are so worked up. Whoever wins, the welfare state can't lose in this election.

Is Romney Really on the Political Right?

In a recent column, the NJ Star-Ledger's Tom Moran pointed out what he believed was an inconsistency in the Romney/Ryan ticket:

   [Mitt Romney's] mate, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, used his prime-time speech to underscore the compassion at the heart of their campaign.
   “We have responsibilities, one to another — we do not each face the world alone,” he said. “And the greatest of all responsibilities is that of the strong to protect the weak. The truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves.”
   It is enough to make your head explode after hearing what Romney was saying behind closed doors, telling wealthy donors that 47 percent of Americans see themselves as “victims” and expect the government to provide free housing, health care and food.
   “My job is not to worry about those people,” he said. “I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

Moran goes on to point out that Ryan's own budget contradicts his statement, because it presents a real threat to all these [social welfare and safety net] programs. Moran goes so far as to say Romney/Ryan are "going after" veterans and "the poor." 

These are pretty strong words, considering that the Ryan budget would run projected deficits until at least 2040. It's hardly a serious attack on the welfare state.

Moran concludes with some political advice for the GOP: If they want to save themselves, they must move to the political middle--presumably from the Right.

   If Romney loses this election, which is growing more likely, it will be interesting to see how the party reacts. Clinton was able to move Democrats to the middle in 1992, in part because the party had lost three presidential elections in a row.
   If Republicans blow this one, despite the bad economy, will they move to the middle as well? And if so, who will be their Bill Clinton?

I left the following comments:

For the Romney/Ryan ticket to "move to the middle," they would have to move Right. Romney is for redistribution, despite his denials and ignorant rhetoric about the 47% (who [as Ari Armstrong points out] don't all have an entitlement mentality). Romney recently said "I believe the right course for America is one where government steps in to help those that are in need." Taking from some to give to others based on a standard of need is the very definition of wealth redistribution. Ryan's comments about "responsibilities" is the very moral foundation of government redistribution programs and could be attributed to Obama word for word.

Both morally and practically, Romney and Ryan are welfare statists--albeit ones that favor slightly lower taxes and some modest restraint on government spending than the Obama camp. If moving to the middle means moving Left, that just shows how far the political middle has moved Left, and how far down the road to totalitarian socialism, and away from capitalist freedom, we have traveled. 

When the GOP renounces the creed that says "the greatest of all responsibilities is that of the strong to protect the weak," and instead embraces the moral ideal that each individual has a moral right to his own life and property so long as he respects the same rights of others to their lives and property--and that the government must never impose any unchosen obligation on anyone to financially support anyone else--we'll know that we have a true advocate on the Right.

Another recent move that belies Romney's Right-Wing credentials is his claim that he would keep parts of ObamaCare, including the pre-existing conditions mandate. To keep that would of course necessitate keeping the individual mandate. This is not surprising, given that Romney's Massachusetts plan is the model for ObamaCare.

Related Reading:

Extremists vs. the Moderates: Why the Left Keeps Winning, and the Right has been Powerless to Stop It

Political "Left" and "Right" Properly Defined

Individualism vs. Collectivism, Profit vs. Non-Profit, In the Education Debate

In response to my comments on a letter in the NJ Star-Ledger published in my blog posts of 8/21/12 and 9/6/12, I received these thoughtful words:

Hybridactor

   While zemack's post is certainly eloquent, it represents a fundamental ideological difference in what "society" is. Zemack, while it's certainly an argument for a more "individualistic" lifestyle, I think your views on education are entirely selfish. Any notion of making the education of our youth a "for-profit" or "free market" field is ludicrous. While educational resources are a business, education itself is not (and shouldn't be). When schools can manage a budget surplus, that money does not go to shareholders or CEOs or board members as "profit". It's reserved for the school--renovations, supplies, technology, supplementary programs, etc. 
   What I find really appalling is how your suggestions will stratify the system. Students with special needs and under-performing students need inclusion with students that are better motivated or better-equipped. In turn, those "higher" students become role-models and learn the value of teamwork. Additionally, when a higher-performing student helps tutor or assist their peers (a strategy educators call "peer instruction"), those higher-performing students tend to internalize the information much more efficiently. Studies have shown that students with special needs will--in general--have more growth when in a classroom with general ed students of differing abilities. This is called the "Least Restrictive Environment", meaning that lumping all of the "poor" students together harms the students. So, if you remove the "better" students and leave the "worse" ones, you're significantly impacting the chances for the students you leave behind. While you may be able to live with that, I cannot.     As a parent, you have plenty of ways to impact your child's education that don't involve merely "money". You probably exist in a district with an elected school board. Do you participate in those elections? Do you attend school board meetings? Do you submit proposals for enrichment or accelerated programs in your schools? Are you rallying other parents to fight for the dismissal of a particularly bad teacher or administrator? If you absolutely must remove your child from the school (mainly as a safety issue), I know several districts with selective-enrollment, magnet, or advanced schools. Have you explored those?  
   Obviously, you're a parent that cares. That's good. Your child will statistically do better because of that support. However, what about parents or children that don't share your compassion for their own education? Are they out of luck? When you actively take money out of public education (the "kitty", as you call it), you weaken the system to the point of being ineffective for everyone. The neighborhood school continues to suffer, cause a larger exodus, which compounds the problem.    When you go down the road of privatization, schools can create whatever guidelines they deem suitable. In Chicago, more students have been expelled (and have voluntarily left) from charter schools than neighborhood schools. I've seen students "counseled out" of a charter school because they've broken some of the minor rules like gum-chewing in the building.     If all that still keeps you in your current mindset, you're welcome to move to a neighborhood with a lower property-tax rate and use those savings to move your student into a private school. I, on the other hand, will do my best to make sure that every student has an awesome education, not just those with the motivation or the money.     Again, your mindset is a very individualistic one. I don't share that mindset. While you may cry "status quo", I say that I willingly acknowledge that I have a stake in what happens to those around me.

I found Hybridactor's "stratify the system" comment interesting, because it is indicative how collectivism corrupts the human mind. To stratify means "to form or place in layers" or, in "sociology, to arrange or place in hierarchical order, especially according to graded status level." What would one call placing children in grades levels (1 through 12) according to age? What does one call periodic grading of students (A, B, C, etc.) according to how well they kept up to some predetermined level of educational competence? The collectivist premise in the term "stratification" is evident, and it is evident that stratification is a term that logically applies to central planning, not free markets. The individual is the only human entity that exists, and each individual is metaphysically an end in himself. When left free, people form bonds based upon common values, not some planner's numerical formula. 

I left the following reply: 

zemack

Hybridactor: Thank you for a thoughtful and respectful response, and for not questioning my motives. I grant you the same benefit of the doubt—that of being “a parent who cares (although in my case, a grandparent who cares). 
 

Yes, there is a “fundamental ideological difference” between our viewpoints. It is between individualism and collectivism—a word that you don’t use but which your views imply. Of the two, individualism is the moral view, because it reflects the supreme value of each individual by respecting his right to think and act on his own judgment without forcible interference from others. Collectivism is the opposite, and by that very fact destroys any possibility of the kind of mutually beneficial, benevolent coexistence you obviously value (as do I), because it necessarily pits people against one another, each group trying to force its values on others. Unfortunately, you’ve chosen a contradictory position; that forcibly subordinating the individual student to some collective grand design can somehow lead to a superb education for each individual. 

No, I do not participate in school board elections and meetings—on principle. The system is all about force, and I have no appetite for forcing my educational values on others. It’s easy to say you want to “make sure that every student has an awesome education.” But to “make sure” implies force; that you are omniscient and know for sure what every child’s needs are; and that you have the right—through government surrogates—to impose your will on others. I believe in the individualist educational philosophy of Maria Montessori. Does that give me the right to impose the Montessori System on others? No, despite the fact that I believe almost all children—most emphatically including most special-needs children—can benefit. I’ve chosen instead to fight for the rights of every parent and educator to pursue their own values, act on their own ideas, and cooperate and contract by mutual consent. (BTW, the educational environment you describe in paragraph 2 sounds strikingly like a Montessori school environment. But cooperation, as Montessori understood, is only workable and morally valid when it is voluntary. Individualism in no way precludes working together.) 

Yes, individualism is selfish, in the noble and proper sense of the word: that is the very nature of thinking for oneself, and acting on one’s own best judgment. A true individualist would renounce force in his dealings with others, and replace it with respect for the other person’s rights. That’s all I ask. That’s why a free market is noble; “free” means absence of predatory force. There is no “leaving behind”—or for that matter, holding back—of any student in a free market, because no one is forced into any collective marching in lockstep. It is not noble to sacrifice any individual to the dictates of any group or collective, which is only made up of other individuals.  
 This is no mere abstract debate. The “fundamental ideological difference” is the difference between force and the absence of force—the basic moral societal alternative—and the two alternatives of human association have real consequences for real people.  

One last comment: Hybridactor writes "Any notion of making the education of our youth a 'for-profit' or 'free market' field is ludicrous." The "free" in "free market" means freedom from forcible interference from others (or government). The question is, what right does anyone have to forcibly interfere with others' educational or contractual choices? If parent A voluntarily pays educator B $5000 to teach her child for one year, and the educator satisfactorily delivers those teaching services at a cost of $4500, the educator has made a $500 profit. What right does anyone have to stop them; i.e., to make the tranaction non-profit? A free market is not "made." It is the absence of "making": It is leaving people free.

He continues: "While educational resources are a business, education itself is not (and shouldn't be). When schools can manage a budget surplus, that money does not go to shareholders or CEOs or board members as 'profit'. It's reserved for the school--renovations, supplies, technology, supplementary programs, etc."

The crucial difference between government schools and private education is force; government collects its revenues by force, while private schools must depend on voluntary payment. Hybridactor obviously holds a Marxist premise when it comes to profit, believing that profit is merely an excess charge arbitrarily plopped on top of the tuition charge. But profit is a discipline that holds prices in check. A private educator must price his services according to market conditions, which includes the ability and/or willingness of its customers to afford the price. The profit is earned by delivering services at a cost that is lower than the market price. So, the profit motive tends always to keep costs and thus prices in check. Government schools are burdened by no such discipline, which is why the cost of public schools is exploding and the quality is at best mediocre. 


The private school profit, which is by no means guaranteed, is the reward for successfully delivering educational services that both satisfies the parents and that the parents can afford. Profits shared with investors is their reward for risking their money on the successful operation of the schools--money that taxpayers are not forced to put up.

Related Reading:

Modern-Day George Wallaces in Reverse

"Investing" in Public Education is Not Investing

On This Constitution Day, Remember the Declaration of Independence

225 years ago, on September 17, 1787, the Constitutional Convention ended and the Constitution of the United States of America was signed. This day is officially known as Constitution Day.

It was also an occasion for one columnist to declare that the US Constitution is "broken." The New Jersey Star-Ledger's Tom Moran writes:

   Kids in America are taught to venerate the Constitution, almost as if it were the word of God.
   And that’s exactly what Thomas Jefferson feared. He believed it was flawed, that experience would teach each generation new lessons and that it should be redone every 19 years.
   But Jefferson lost the argument. And so the Founders signed a Constitution 225 years ago tomorrow that is an impregnable fortress, firmly set against the forces of change that Jefferson welcomed and almost impossible to amend.
   Does that make sense? Haven’t we learned valuable lessons over the past few centuries about how democracies thrive, and how they stagnate? In a day when our federal government is so dysfunctional, shouldn't we at least consider fundamental changes?

University of Texas Professor Sanford Levinson is advocating a series of such fundamental changes to the US Constitution, which Tom Moran discusses in his recent NJ Star-Ledger column. Levinson's proposals include instituting a direct popular vote for president and measures to greatly weaken the checks and balances that limit the power of any one branch of government. In essence, Levinson's purpose, according to Moran, is to expand the power of majority rule and break Washington's political "gridlock," which has made our federal government "dysfunctional."

Moran approvingly cites Thomas Jefferson who, as Moran strongly implies, would welcome these constitutional changes, or any changes suited to any generation.

Before we discuss ways to expand the power of electoral majority rule so as to enable the government to get more done, we need to have a conversation about what the government's proper job it is to do.

The American constitution's basic function is to limit government's power to the protection of individual rights. This is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, the philosophical blueprint for the constitution. Any discussion about the constitution has to begin with the Declaration--which, incidentally, was written by Thomas Jefferson.

The Founders did not intend to create a democracy, despite Moran's devious attempt to smuggle in that premise. They created a constitutionally limited republic protective of the liberty and rights of the individual. They understood that  government presupposes individual rights. So the constitutional discussion must begin with the questions: What are rights, and what is the proper function of government?

As the Declaration states, every individual possesses "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Since productive work is the only means of sustaining one's life and achieving happiness, it's obvious that the Founders understood--including in Jefferson's own words--that property rights are among those rights. The Declaration then states "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men." Rights are sanctions to freedom of action, not a claim on the lives and property of others or a government guarantee of material well-being and happiness. Notice that the constitution does not authorize government to redistribute private wealth.

Today, the fundamental principles upon which the constitution rests have been largely abandoned, opening the door to the piecemeal progression toward unlimited totalitarian government. Consequently, our best protection against further encroachments on individual rights--and it's a weak protection--is political gridlock. I can't think of anything more dangerous to America's future than to begin tampering with the basics of the constitution in today's cultural environment. Before we consider unshackling majority rule, we must rediscover our Founding principles, roll back the regulatory welfare state, and provide ironclad guarantees that no one's rights be alienated by majority vote.

The Founders did not intend to replace absolute monarchy with absolute majority rule unrestrained by the principle of individual rights. As Jefferson said, "the majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society." The Founders were not primarily concerned with giving the people the right to vote. They intended to liberate the people from predatory government, whether monarchistic, theocratic, or democratic.

Related Reading:

On a Revisionist's Proposal to Upend the Declaration of Independence