Why Conservatism is a Perpetual Loser

The Left Worries about what Obamacare’s Failure Means for the Future: What We Must Do to Respond. 

This is the heading of a recent column by Ron Radosh on PJMedia. The "we" means "we conservatives." He believes that the ObamaCare rollout fiasco is an opportunity for Republicans to turn the cultural tide against "liberalism."

How? 

For such a result — to use the words of the late Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci — we need to wage a war of position, and to challenge the ideological hegemony of liberalism and liberal ideology. That means we must challenge the entire culture of liberalism in its most basic sense, and provide conservative alternatives to the entire set of liberal bromides that are continually put forth. It means we have to wage a fight in the universities, in the entertainment industry, and throughout the culture at large. This will eventually lead to victory in the electoral arena.

This is all true, and something Objectivists have been saying for a long time. It's a war of ideas—of fundamental ideas—and winning meaningfully at the polls presupposes winning the war of ideas.

Unfortunately, Radosh doesn't specifically spell out the ideas conservatives are to rely on to challenge the Left. Nor does he spell out what constitutes "liberalism in its most basic sense." So what, exactly, should this fight be about? Radosh's next paragraph gives us a broad hint:

But in the meantime, let us start by working hard to keep the House and take the Senate in 2014 — two necessary goals to begin the job of repealing ObamaCare and creating a solid conservative alternative that would address the problem of health care for the currently uninsured, and that would not be the stepping-stone to a single-payer system.

The Left stands for collectivism and its political corollary; state supremacy over the individual. The only alternative is individualism and its corollary; individual rights and limited, rights-protecting government. How does one win the war of ideas when, in the political arena, one adopts the Left's premises; "repealing ObamaCare and creating a solid conservative alternative that would address the problem of health care for the currently uninsured?" Isn't the needs of the uninsured what ObamaCare is all about? Isn't the idea that it is society's job is to fill the needs of individuals and the government's job is to carry out that mission precisely "liberalism in its most basic sense?"

If conservatives' only answer to ObamaCare is to achieve the Left's agenda, then what exactly does it mean "to challenge the ideological hegemony of liberalism and liberal ideology?" Where does individual rights and limited, rights-protecting government fit into an "alternative that would address the problem of health care for the currently uninsured"; i.e., a government that violates rights, which is the only way a government can provide insurance to the uninsured? 

This is why America stands on the precipice of full, undiluted socialized medicine, with full socialism following right behind—albeit through the back door of fascism. Conservatives have been losing the fight for a century precisely because they let the Left set the ideological agenda. 

What the Right needs is to adopt a long-term strategy based on fundamental principles of liberty. Such a strategy includes rejecting the idea that the government's or society's job is to guarantee some level of material fulfillment to any individual or group, no matter how "needy." This strategy may mean taking some lumps at the polls in the short term as the price of building a solid governing ideology of individualism down the road. But what is the point of winning elections without a liberty mandate?

Related Reading:

Extremists vs. the Moderates: Why the Left Keeps Winning, and the Right has been Powerless to Stop It
My Challenge to the GOP: A Philosophical Contract With America

The Rise of Collectivism and the Fall of the Constitution

In urging House Speaker John Boehner to "stand up to the extremists" in his party to end the government shutdown, New Jersey Councilman Kevin Scollans said this in a recent letter to the NJ Star-Ledger:

The good of the nation is more important than any individual, regardless of what high office a person holds or political gains his party achieves. This protracted shutdown and potential default of U.S. debt can only harm Americans. The inability of Congress to act on important matters reaffirms the view that Washington is broken and that compromise — the fundamental reason our Constitution exists — is an impossible dream in 2013.

Scollans concludes his letter with a quote from Republican President Rutherford Hayes's 1877 inaugural address, “He serves his party best who serves his country best.”

I left these comments:

RE: Boehner’s backbone 

"The good of the nation is more important than any individual . . ."

A more evil, un-American statement could not be uttered. Collectivism is the ideology that holds the group, rather than the individual, as the focus of moral concern. The group could mean the proletariat,  the race, the public, society, the tribe, the nation. Whatever the manifestation of the group, the political rulers—the state—acts in its stead, since the group is made up of individuals and only individuals exist and can act. Collectivism is the same ideology that gave rise to the Stalins, Hitlers, Maos, and Pol Pots—and the horrors their political systems perpetrated.

Collectivism is becoming entrenched in America at the expense of individualism, the American ideology that undergirds liberty. Is it any wonder that our politicians feel ever more emboldened to force ObamaCare and minimum wage laws and eminent domain and the whole panoply of regulatory welfare state infractions of individual rights down our throats? What can't the nation do to its individual citizens if "the nation is more important than any individual?" Redistribute his wealth? Regulate his life and business? Force him into slave labor or a concentration camp, gulag, or Killing Field? Why not, if the nation deems it to be to its good?

"The inability of Congress to act on important matters reaffirms the view that Washington is broken and that compromise — the fundamental reason our Constitution exists — is an impossible dream in 2013."

The misunderstanding (or evasion) of the meaning of the constitution is related to the rise of collectivist ideology in America. "Compromise" is not a fundamental reason for the constitution. Compromise is not even the unalloyed good it is taken as today. Whether a compromise is good or bad or justified depends on what one is compromising on. The fundamental purpose of the constitution is to limit the power of the government to its proper purpose of protecting individual rights, precisely so that "the nation"—i.e., the government—doesn't compromise away those rights.

At the root of this nation's expanding problems—including the conflict over ObamaCare that triggered the shutdown—is the rise of collectivist ideology and the resultant obliteration of the meaning of the constitution. The fundamental struggle in America is collectivism vs. individualism. As long as some people believe they can trample the rights of others in the name of "the nation," Washington will become ever more "broken." No compromise is possible without recognition of the sanctity, dignity, and primacy of the individual, because no compromise is possible between those whose rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of values are violated and those who profiteer on the sacrifice of others' rights. No compromise is possible between individualism and collectivism. One side or the other must cave in.

I don't mean to imply that the Republicans are consistent champions of individualism and the constitution (individual rights and limited, rights-protecting government). Most are not, which is why their current political strategy will probably fail. And I don't mean to imply that Councilman Scollans wants totalitarianism. But his sentiments, if ever fully accepted, will be the death knell for America.

Scollans quotes President Hayes's 1877 Inaugural Address. But let's not forget the full context of his message. Focusing on the need to bring full realization of individual liberty to the former slaves, Hayes said that "The permanent pacification of the country [depends] upon such principles and by such measures as will secure the complete protection of all its citizens in the free enjoyment of all their constitutional rights. . . ." He put individual rights above country. The same can be said regarding today's political polarization. To all of our elected officials in any level of government—and to all Americans—I would add to President Hayes's quote in the letter: ". . . and he serves his country best who serves the cause of the constitution and individual rights best."

Related Reading:

Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice—Craig Biddle

Collectivism vs. Individualism in Letters

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

Is ObamaCare's Individual Mandate Necessary to Prevent "Freeloading?"

In the Huff Post article in which Michael Smerconish took on the charge that ObamaCare is socialist, Smerconish said in support of his argument refuting the "socialist" charge:

The further irony is that those who were quick to level the "socialist" charge were advocating for the right of people to remain uninsured and burden everyone else, which CNN's Jake Tapper recently raised with Sen. Mike Lee (R., Utah): "When did Republicans start saying, 'That's OK, you can freeload'?" I don't think that's a fair characterization of the Republican position on this at all," Lee replied. Tapper responded: "If you're against the individual mandate, or any sort of requirement that people have health insurance, then that is your position." The only liberty interest being sacrificed under the ACA is one's ability to be uninsured. And even that is violable. [Kaiser Health News's Mary Agnes] Carey reminded me that you can still exercise your right to be uninsured, but you will pay a fine.

Such is the twisted logic of ObamaCare supporters. What is Smerconish taking as the given?—Government welfare programs that allow some people to "burden everyone else" by forcibly transferring wealth from productive citizens through various welfare programs.

Smerconish lumps two opposite premises into a package deal; that the right to be uninsured means the right to steal (which is what cashing in on welfare is). But in fact, one is a right and the other isn't. People do have a right to "remain uninsured." People do not have a right to unearned benefits that others are forced to provide.

This highlights the essential political and moral problem with ObamaCare: The individual mandate is a rights-violating government's answer to a problem caused by government—the alleged "right" to healthcare provided by others. The fact that you are "free" to not have insurance by paying a "fine" only means that the mandate is an extortion scheme.

The solution consistent with liberty is simple: Do away with all government programs that force taxpayers to pay for others' healthcare, and there is no freeloader problem. No freeloader problem, no individual mandate. No individual mandate, no "fine."

Related Reading:

Is ObamaCare Socialist? No, . . . and Yes: But Who Cares?

ObamaCare's Useful Idiots

Taxes in New Jersey: Americans for Prosperity vs. New Jersey Policy Perspective

In rebuttal to a guest column by Daren Iwicki of Americans for Prosperity, Cutting taxes can lead N.J. to prosperity, the NJ Star-Ledger published a letter by Gordon MacInnes, president of New Jersey Policy Perspective. MacInnes, who wrote in Don’t model N. Carolina:

It’s easy to call for lower taxes, as Americans for Prosperity did in its op-ed “Cutting taxes can lead N.J. to prosperity” (Aug. 6). It’s simple, if reckless, to talk of cutting taxes without also discussing cutting public services to offset the lost revenue.
Tax plans like North Carolina’s have no place in New Jersey. Enacting similar “reforms” would harm our ability to make the investments and broaden the opportunities that we need for long-term prosperity.

MacInnes also notes that North Carolina raises certain sales taxes.

"Tax plans like North Carolina’s have no place in New Jersey. Enacting similar 'reforms' would harm our ability to make the investments and broaden the opportunities that we need for long-term prosperity."

Translation: Tax plans like North Carolina's would harm the ability of politicians to seize the earnings of productive New Jerseyans at gunpoint in order to "invest" as the politicians—and self-appointed spokesmen for "we"—would prefer.

Money belongs first and foremost to the individuals who earn it. Every individual has a right to spend and invest his own money as he sees fit. Kudos to Americans for Prosperity for raising a voice for the productive people who pay for government spending.

Yes, it is "reckless to talk of cutting taxes without also discussing cutting public services to offset the lost revenue (although the Earned Income Tax Credit is a handout, not a tax credit: Cutting it is not a tax increase, but a reduction in government spending)." But Iwicki does vaguely discuss cutting spending, calling for "reducing the size of state government, getting bureaucrats off the backs of our entrepreneurs and job creators, and cutting taxes across the board." 

MacInnes notes of the North Carolina tax plan:

And by ending the Earned Income Tax Credit for working families and expanding the sales tax to new services, while also raising taxes on electricity and some home sales, the majority of North Carolina’s taxpayers — the 80 percent of households making $84,000 or less a year — will see higher, not lower, taxes.

Yes, it is a bad idea to increase others taxes such as the ones mentioned above (although the Earned Income Tax Credit is often a handout, not a tax credit: Cutting it may not be a tax increase at all, but a reduction in government spending). But MacInnes is attacking a straw man, because Iwicki calls for no tax increases. 

We need drastic reductions in tax rates and a flattening of the rate structure for fairness, coupled with major reductions in government spending on "investments" and redistribution schemes—not just as a means to spur economic growth, but as a moral imperative.  

Related Reading:

Time for a Flat Tax

Whose Money Is It, Anyway?

Patriotism and the Welfare State

"Sustainable" Material Bounty Requires Sustainable, Reliable Energy—Like Fossil Fuels

In response to the Star-Ledger's editorial asserting America's "deep moral responsibility to reduce our own emissions" to alleviate the alleged effects of climate change, especially on "poor" nations, a supportive letter was published on 11/29/13. Dubbed Climate change: The entire world’s problem, the letter writer agreed and stated:

As we give thanks this [Thanksgiving] week for the bounty we enjoy, let’s also pause to think about the implications for others — and for ourselves, ultimately — if we don’t find ways to create this material bounty more sustainably. We know it can be done, through better technology, and by changing our tax burden off labor and onto fossil fuels. It just requires the good will and common sense to act.

"Sustainable" refers to the ability to power our industrial civilization by generating energy without using up natural "resources." This is also known as so-called "renewable" energy. Alex Epstein demolishes this idiocy. I left these comments:

We've already found "ways to create this material bounty more sustainably"; a free market economy powered by cheap, reliable energy provided by nuclear, hydro-electric, and—especially—fossil fuels, which provide 87% of the energy that powers the developed world's life-sustaining industrialization.

America and other advanced Western nations have the most prosperous living standards and cleanest, safest environments in world history. They have plentiful clean water, indoor plumbing, environmentally safe kitchens, clean central heating and air conditioning, advanced transportation systems that can enable mass evacuations in advance of storms, plentiful, uninterrupted food production and distribution, and a general ability to recover rapidly and move on from natural disasters—and much more. In the last 200 years, life expectancies have nearly doubled and climate-related deaths have declined 98%—all primarily because of fossil fuel energy-driven industrialization.

What separates the "rich" developed nations from the "poor" developing nations in their ability to cope with nature's ever-present, ongoing threats to human well-being? Industrialization, driven primarily by fossil fuels.

The only moral responsibility the West owes poor countries is to encourage them to industrialize by continuing to open up the world's markets so those nations' people can freely engage in trade with producers from America and elsewhere. That, and encourage them to adopt the fundamental cause of human advancement—the liberation of the individual's reasoning mind, production, and trade that is only to be found under capitalist economic/political freedom. The rest is up to them.

The real threat to the world is not climate change, but the insanity of de-industrialization masquerading as "carbon pollution" reduction. Forget the Left's latest socialist mantra, "climate justice." We need real justice. Western leaders should unequivocally reject not only demands for financial “compensation” to developing nations but also pressure to hamper its own citizens' individual rights and prosperity—and ability to protect themselves from nature's hostile forces—through forced cut-backs on CO2 emissions. America and company should not apologize for its "carbon pollution"—its citizens' earned prosperity. It should encourage more of it—for ourselves and the entire world. 

America's political leaders do have a moral obligation; to proudly defend our political and economic lifestyle, our citizens’ industrial achievements, and the heroic, life-giving fossil fuel industry that powers and enables it.

The entire world's problem is generating a livable environment in the face of nature, which is, in its raw state, hostile to human flourishing and survival. Climate fluctuations are incinsequential compared with that task.

Related Reading:

Obama Should Approve the Keystone Pipeline for Economic AND Environmental Reasons

Progressive Energy vs. "Renewable" Energy—Alex Epstein

Fossil Fuels improve the Planet—Alex Epstein

Now, the World's Looters Target America for "Climate Injustice"

The recently concluded United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change featured a passionate call for "climate justice," in the form of financial "compensation" to "poor" nations extracted from Western taxpayers in atonement for their "polluting," climate-changing economies. The NJ Star-Ledger editorialized: 

Poor nations are fed up with rich nations wreaking all kinds of havoc on our climate. Since they’re the ones suffering the most from it, they say, they should be financially compensated.

The failure of "rich" nations to atone for their guilt will have dire consequences for "poor" nations, the Star-Ledger breathlessly asserts: 

    Since the Industrial Revolution, wealthy countries have produced the vast majority of the carbon emissions causing upheaval to our climate, joined only recently by China — which just surpassed the United States as the world’s largest greenhouse gas polluter — and India.
    Since scientists became aware of the effects of global warming, it’s been clear that poor countries would be the hardest hit because they have the fewest resources to protect themselves against extreme weather events. And unlike a devastating typhoon, some of the worst effects are creeping and quiet. As a result of climate change, yields from rain-fed agriculture could drop by up to half by 2020, the U.N. reports.
    As this trend advances, people in poor African countries will starve to death.
    There will be increased tension, flaring into wars over the remaining land that is fertile. Outbreaks of malaria are expected. And water will advance on coastal populations.

Leaving aside the unresolved and controversial issue of how much human activity contributes to climate change, I left these comments:

If "rich" Western countries are the big "polluters," why are "poor" countries the big victims of natural disasters? Weather disasters, after all, do not discriminate against developing countries. So why the discrepancy? Precisely because "poor" countries are not "polluters"; i.e., not adequately industrialized.

America and other advanced Western nations have the most prosperous living standards and cleanest, safest [human living] environments in world history. They have plentiful clean water, indoor plumbing, environmentally safe kitchens, clean central heating and air conditioning, advanced transportation systems that can enable mass evacuations in advance of storms, plentiful food production and distribution, and a general ability to recover rapidly from natural disasters and move on—and much more, all primarily because of fossil fuel energy-driven industrialization.

Rather than beg for international welfare at Western taxpayers's expense, the "poor" countries should emulate America and the West. Poor country's governments should pave the way for the same kind of advanced industrialization that will enable them to deal with natural disasters and simultaneously raise living standards, rather than play victims looking for a hand out. How? 

Human beings survive and thrive by applying reason-guided productive work to the task of altering the raw environment to human benefit. The only social requirement needed for that to happen is the liberty of individuals to think and act and interact on their own independent judgements. Therefore, poor countries should embrace Western ideals. Adopt a social system where the rights of individuals are recognized and legally protected—including rights to property and trade—so that each can work for his own benefit, in voluntary, mutually beneficial trade with other willing producers at home and the world over. For poor countries, capitalism and the consequent industrialization is the answer to dealing with nature's ever-ongoing brutal, hostile forces. 

If they won't adopt liberty and capitalism, then let them have their wars and starvation. It will be their choice, and the continued suffering of the poor countries will be their own doing, not the West's fault. 

The only moral responsibility the West owes poor countries is to continue to open up the world's markets so those nations' people can freely engage in trade with producers from America and elsewhere. Forget the Left's latest socialist mantra, "climate justice." We need real justice. America and company should not apologize for the achievements of its freedom and fossil fuel-driven "carbon pollution"—its citizens' earned prosperity—by hampering its own citizens' individual rights and prosperity through involuntarily forcing cut-backs on CO2 emissions. America's leaders have a moral responsibility to proudly defend our political and economic lifestyle and the life-giving fossil fuel industry that powers and enables it.

Related Reading:

Obama Should Approve the Keystone Pipeline for Economic AND Environmental Reasons

The Industrial Manifesto—Alex Epstein

Fossil Fuels improve the Planet—Alex Epstein

Obama’s Fascist “Partnership” With Big Business

As President Obama was gearing up for the budget battle with Republicans that would eventually lead to this Fall's partial government shutdown, the president issued a threat to American big businessmen that could have been uttered by any fascist dictator: “Do as we government officials say, or else.”

Of course, Obama didn't actually say that word for word. What he actually said is that he wants to "partner" with American big business to achieve his domestic policy goals:

As The Daily Caller's Neil Munro reported on September 18:

President Barack Obama told business leaders today that he wants close cooperation between his government and their companies.
“We want to be a consistent partner with you on a whole range of issues,” he told the D.C.-based Business Roundtable, an association for the CEOs of major U.S. companies. . . .    
The proposed partnership would have CEOs lobby Congress for passage of Obama’s goals, including passage of a Senate bill that triples the rate of immigration to add 33 million immigrants over the next decade, and passage of a budget that doesn’t cut Obamacare’s federally-run health-care system, Obama suggested. . . .
“It is going to be important for all of you, I think, over the next several weeks to understand what’s at stake and to make sure that you are using your influence in whatever way you can”, said Obama.

Obama was referring to the economic consequences of a government shutdown, but his words carry much broader implications than immediate economic concerns.

A partnership implies a voluntary agreement between legally equal participants geared toward a common goal.

But there is no legal equality between a government that holds prosecutorial, tax, and regulatory powers—the power of the gun—over its private business “partners.” In the kind of “partnership” Obama “proposed”, what choice do these Business Roundtable executives have but to “lobby Congress for passage of Obama’s goals?” What choice do the businessmen have but to do any of the government’s bidding—”on a whole range of issues”—when the government can hold its legal powers over the heads of the businessmen? Just look at the regulatory meat grinder that JPMorgan is being put through.

There are, to be sure, businessmen who gleefully relish into such "public-private partnerships." They are the kinds of businessmen who flourish in a mixed economy (a mixture of economic freedom and government controls)—the kind that seeks to "succeed" by government favor, rather than open competition in a free market. But that does not change the nature of the game. It is the government that always calls the shots, whether or not the government officials are doing the bidding of select businessmen or some other special interest.

Obama is, of course, not the first president to "partner" with big business. But he has been the most brazen at cashing in on the powers that government has accrued over the private economy over the last century. As Munro notes:

Obama is not a socialist, because he does not believe the government needs to own companies and factories. Instead, he’s a progressive who believes the nation’s economy and society should be managed by government experts, not by the varied preferences of individual CEOs, parents and workers.

Obama, though, is definitely a socialist in terms of deep fundamentals. He understands that there is a backdoor means of attaining socialist goals, just as certain 20th European leaders understood. As Adolph Hitler said of his brand of national socialism: "The decisive factor is that the State . . . is supreme over all, regardless of whether they are owners or workers. . . . Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.”

Obama, of course, is not Hitler. But can anyone honestly say that Obama would disagree with Hitler? There is a political system that features the kind of unholy alliance between government and big business Obama speaks of, although the Left is not honest enough to name it. So-called “progressives” were fascist a hundred years ago and they’re fascist under Obama.

Obama’s not-so-veiled threat to the Business Roundtable should serve as a warning to Americans: We are heading down a dangerous road. The liberty of businessmen to act on their own judgement in pursuit of their own values—and, ultimately, the liberty of the rest of us to do the same, “whether they are owners or workers”— is “what’s at stake.” If America is to reverse the trend toward its own brand of national socialist fascism, Americans must demand an end to the kinds of “close cooperation” proposed by Obama. Instead, to restore and guarantee our full liberty, we must move toward the separation of economics and state, also known as laissez-faire capitalism.

Related Reading:

Fed Up With the Political Status Quo? Discover the "Unknown Ideal"