Topic: Conservatism needs work

[RangerRay]

From my far away vantage point, it appears that the British Tories will emulate their Ontario namesakes result with their "Blairesque" leader, David Cameron.  He has pretty much repudiated Thatcherism and appears to be steering the Tories toward "Labour-lite" policies.

On the other hand, here in BC, this is meeting a different result.  After their victory in 2001, Gordon Campbell and the BC Liberals embarked on "Harris-inspired" program of reducing the size and scope of the provincial government, and decreasing taxes.  However, after losing ground in the 2005 election, the BC Liberal government has become bland, avoiding controversial policies, and moving towards the centre.  Currently, Premier Campbell and the BC Liberals have never been more popular! 

[Thucydides]

Interesting observation, but time will tell. The BC Liberals were elected because they had distinctive ideas, but are now in the process of repudiating them. In the next election, will people vote for them, or a party which clearly stands for something? (Rhetorical question at best).

[RangerRay]

As to the BC Liberals, I believe that they will be re-elected without any problems.  Even though they are not as "right-wing" as they were in their first term, there is no credible free-enterprise alternative for the more "conservative" voter to support.  I believe most "conservative" voters will still vote for the BC Liberals simply to keep the Socialist Horde (aka the NDP) out of office.

In BC, the NDP only wins when the free-enterprise vote (comprised of federal Conservative and blue Liberal voters) is split.  Right now, there is no credible alternative on the right.

[Thucydides]

Here is a site more geared to actions:

http://www.freedom-force.org/

The Freedom Force strategy can be summarized as:
Don't fight city hall when you can BE city hall.

[Thucydides]

Thoughts for a new generation of Conservatives:

http://www.amazon.ca/Comeback-Conservatism-That-Can-Again/dp/0385515332

At a moment of crisis and pessimism for American conservatives, David Frum offers fresh ideas—and fresh hope.

Not in a generation has conservatism been in as much trouble as it is at the end of the Bush years. A majority of Americans say the country is “on the wrong track.” Voters prefer Democrats over Republicans on almost every issue, including taxes. The married, the middle-class, the native-born are dwindling as a share of the population, while Democratic blocs are rising. A generation of young people has turned its back on the Republican party.

Too many conservatives and Republicans have shut their eyes to negative trends. David Frum offers answers.

Frum says that the ideas that won elections for conservatives in the 1980s have done their job. Republicans can no longer win elections on taxes, guns, and promises to restore traditional values. It’s time now for a new approach, including:

A conservative commitment to make private-sector health insurance available to every American
Lower taxes on savings and investment financed by higher taxes on energy and pollution
Federal policies to encourage larger families
Major reductions in unskilled immigration
A genuinely compassionate conservatism, including a conservative campaign for prison reform and government action against the public health disaster of obesity
A new conservative environmentalism that promotes nuclear power in place of coal and oil
Higher ethical standards inside the conservative movement and the Republican party
A renewed commitment to expand and rebuild the armed forces of the United States—to crush terrorism—and get ready for the coming challenge from China

Frum’s previous bestselling books have earned accolades for their courage and creativity from liberals and conservatives alike. Today, with the conservative movement and the Republican Party facing their greatest danger since Watergate, Frum has again stepped forward with new ideas to take conservatism—and America—into a new century of greatness.

[Thucydides]

A review of David Frum's latest book:

http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/apr08/daifallah.pdf

After Bush: updating conservatism
David Frum. Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win
Again. New York and Toronto: Doubleday, 2007
Review by Adam Daifallah

How the mighty have fallen. The triumphalist proclamations of the late 1990s and early 2000s had it that conservatism and the Republican
Party were in a “permanent” majority situation, an electoral behemoth out of the reach of the out-of-synch, out-ofdate and rudderless Democrats.

Then came the messy war in Iraq, George W. Bush’s unpopular presidency, the bungled handling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster and various scandals involving lobbyists and politicians (think Senator Larry Craig and his “wide stance”).

The Republican Party in 2008 is in dire straits, and the back-patting of recent years now seems unbelievably misguided, if not laughable. What went wrong, and how do they regain their glory? Very few people are asking the tough questions, and David Frum is one of the
few who are. In the short but stinging Comeback, Frum, the Canadian expatriate who wrote speeches for President Bush, sets out to define three things: what went wrong, why the ideas of the past no longer work and how to win again.

Few are as good as Frum at highlighting the shortcomings of his own movement. Out of curiosity, after reading Comeback, I dusted off my copy of his 1994 breakout book, Dead Right. That volume had a similar theme: how to rejuvenate the conservative movement. In Dead Right, Frum surveyed the failings of the Reagan years, analyzed the state of  the Republican Party, and concluded by challenging conservatives and Republicans to recommit themselves to shrinking the size of government. That goal has eluded every self-proclaimed conservative revolutionary, from Reagan to Thatcher to Mike Harris.

In 2008, Frum takes a different tack. Writing now as much less an observer of politics and more an active partisan (he constantly uses the term “we” to describes Republicans and conservatives throughout), Frum says the solutions of the past can no longer work. The Reagan revolution is over, he says, and conservative ideas have won the day.

Inflation is consistently low. Income taxes have been reduced so much that nearly 30 million income earning households don’t pay any tax at all. Crime hardly registers as an issue. He trots out a plethora of social science data to demonstrate that the recent demographic,
economic and attitudinal shifts in American make it so that the issues of the past no longer have traction.

Therefore, according to Frum, it is time to move on to new ideas and a new conservatism fit for the times. This time Frum is not  advocating a libertarian-style revolution. Rather, he is happy to use the levers of the state to move the country in a more conservative direction. He wants to introduce tuition tax credits for families earning less than $75,000 a year. He urges the Republicans to come up with better solutions to the health care problem or permanently cede the issue to the Democrats. He wishes America would do more to help India, to try to advantage it over Communist China. There are even suggestions for a conservative campaign to humanize prisons and for a government campaign against the obesity epidemic.

Another surprise is Frum’s enthusiasm for a carbon tax to wean America off its dependence on oil and to force expansion of nuclear energy production. As someone who has advocated a Canadian conservative co-opting of the environmental issue, I find this strategy makes obvious sense. Environmental issues cut across the partisan divide, and much as in health care, the American right is presently offering no innovative policies.

This book will surprise some readers, who (mostly wrongly) associate Frum with the right wing of the Republican Party. This is no libertarian manifesto. But as an adherent myself to the view that conservatism in America and throughout the Anglosphere needs
some updating, I think Frum makes some convincing points. Attitudes and priorities have changed, and any political movement wishing to stay relevant must change with them.

Conservatism is in a state of crisis compared to where it was only a few years ago. Before Frum’s prescriptions are contemplated or adopted, a return to first principles — just as he advocated in his 1994 book — would probably be a much better first step. Frum does prescribe this near the end of his book, urging conservatives  to stop neglecting the “ideas business.” But I think it would be more useful
if they were to do this first before exploring specific policies. The movement is lost. Another problem is that the movement has no clear white knight (or “next Reagan”) at the moment. Without strong leadership at the top acting as a uniting force, there is little hope that the base of the movement and the party could be dragged in a new direction.

If nothing else, this book should cause the American conservative movement to give itself a good look in the mirror. It needs it.

Adam Daifallah is co-author, with Tasha Kheiriddin, of Rescuing Canada’s Right: Blueprint for a Conservative Revolution
(2005, John Wiley & Sons).

[Thucydides]

While David Frum says Conservatism needs to change and evolve, this poster disagrees.

http://strongconservative.blogspot.com/2008/06/conservatism-is-timeless.html

Conservatism is Timeless
Some conservatives, like David Frum and others, have argued that conservatism needs to change in order to win. Adaptation to new realities, evolution of thought, etc...

But conservative principles are timeless: freedom, the rights of the individual, democracy, free markets (capitalism), the rule of law, personal responsibility, peace through strength, government of the people, the subjugation of government to the will of the electorate, less government is better government. These are what conservatism is.

Rush Limbaugh artfully describes this reality:

RUSH: I was perusing using various websites, conservative websites. (I'm not going to mention the name; it doesn't matter; they're a dime a dozen now.) But I ran across some guy in a little post on his blog say, "You know, conservatives have got to change with the times. This is not Reagan anymore. They can't keep talking about Reagan. We've gotta modernize. We've gotta adapt." You know, the problem with this is... Let me make it as simple as possible. It has nothing to do with Reagan. It has nothing to do with cult-like devotion to Ronald Reagan. It has to do with the fact that personal freedom will never go out of style and personal freedom is at the root of conservatism; personal freedom and liberty and holding on it and maintaining it. And that's what conservative is, and that's never going to go out of style, and I don't know that we have to adapt that to anything other than what needs to be adapted and changed and stopped is the ongoing movement found in way too many parts of this country that would infringe upon individual liberty and freedom and yet we're told, "Come on! You gotta adapt, you gotta modernize. You gotta understand where we're headed here. We got a new set of problems and so forth." That's just it. There isn't a problem in the world that doesn't have as its best start in solving it freedom, pure and simple.

Exactly! Preach it brother!

RUSH: Well, you are singing my tune, which basically is: We have defeatists who do nothing but accept every premise offered by the left (HAGEL). I have been part of a discussion before the program today -- well, I have been a witness to a discussion, one of these chat things, in a chat room on a blog -- amongst conservative intellectuals on global warming (conservative intellectual pamphleteers as you would call 'em) and they're all saying, "Well, of course it's happening, manmade global warming. Of course I was the happening. What we have to do is accept the premise and then go in there and tweak it and make sure that what they're fix is doesn't cost a lot of money and ruin the economy." So this is what's happening in way too many instances. We accept the premise because it's easier to do that than to fight the premise. It's precisely what American conservatives want from their leaders, though, is to fight the premise of all this; to fight the premise of socialized health care; to tell people how it's going to cost them more money and reduce the quality of their care, and the availability of it.

It's so frustrating because it's happening all across the world, where they're trying it. Canada, the UK. There is a great column in the op-ed section of the New York Post today about the kind of care Ted Kennedy got for his brain tumor and the surgery to remove it, versus somebody who has the same circumstance in the UK. Yet the same people who are benefiting from the greatest health care system in the world are those who want to destroy it in order to put themselves and the government in charge of it -- and it's a pure myth. It is a myth that they want to do this because they feel sorry for poor people. It's because they want power. Liberalism is oriented around a series of false promises and fallacious premises. And one of the primary things that drives it is this whole notion -- and we have talked about this before, and it's the root of class envy -- is the equality of outcomes. It isn't fair that some people should have more money than others, bigger houses, nicer cars, better neighborhoods, better schools. It isn't fair. And America will not be a just nation until all these inequities have been rectified to where everybody is the same. Well, the only way everybody can be the same is if a tyrannical despot dictator takes over the group and forces misery on them all, because no two Americans are the same. Aside from physically, look at the psychological. Look at the differences in ambition, desire, abilities. And you're absolutely right: conservatism is nothing more than natural law, and at the root of it is freedom. And they tell us conservatism needs to reform and adapt to the times? Nope. Because personal liberty and freedom is for all time, and it's the foundational building block of what we believe in.

For all you Canadians in the GTA, you can hear Rush on AM 930 out of Buffalo every week day from 12 to 3pm. Tune in and learn what conservatism is, why it is better than statism preached by Obama, Clinton, Trudeau and the rest, and why we need it in the USA, Canada, and around the world.

I agree in the sense that the fundimentals never change, but what is needed is a better tactical sense of how to apply the fundimentals to the issues of the day, in a manner people readily understand.

[adaminc]

You guys should read up on the Freedom Party, supposedly they are going to be a new party in the Federal Election in 2008. Whether or not that will actually happen I don't know. But I do like some of their policies. Especially the ones on Property rights.

They seem very Libertarian like.

[Thucydides]

Rebuilding of Conservatism in the US and strengthening it throughout the world requires a building of Classical Liberal culture:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ask-dr-helen-where-is-conservative-culture/

Ask Dr. Helen: Where Is Conservative Culture?

Posted By Helen Smith On November 10, 2008 @ 12:53 am In . Column1 01, . Positioning, Art, Ask Dr. Helen, Books, Culture, Film | 47 Comments

The election is over and everywhere you turn, people are saying that the Republican brand sucks, conservatives are on the way out, and free markets are over.

This is a hope on the part of liberals and not reality. Haven’t people been saying that Democrats or Republicans were on the way out since, well, there have been Dems and Republicans? Conservative and libertarian ideas are still good ones, but ones that need to reach out to a wider audience in venues that they can appreciate.

My email question today has to do with where to find conservative culture:

Hello Dr. Helen,

I am just discovering Pajamas Media. What a nice surprise.  My question is where is the conservative culture? Conservative politics is fairly easy to find. What I am looking for is music, novels, tv, movies, magazines — see what I mean? So much popular culture is lead by deadbeat celebrities. Perhaps Pajamas Media will evolve to fill this need. I hope so.

A Reader

Dear Reader,

You raise a good point: culture drives politics and not the other way around, at least in my opinion. Because of this, it is imperative that if conservative and libertarian ideas are to survive, we must educate people in ways that they can relate to — and this means popular culture in the form of books, music, television, movies, and social groups, starting with education.

I used to think that people could resist being indoctrinated in our education system and culture in left-leaning modes of thought, but I found out that I was wrong. For example, in [1] an article in Forbes, author Ray Fisman explains how professors can turn bleeding hearts into capitalists — and vice versa. Students taught by economics professors who valued efficiency tended to be more capitalistic in their outlook, and those exposed to philosophy professors who focused more on “equality” tended to be more into wealth redistribution.

My guess is that public schools teach more like the latter professors than the former, giving students more exposure to liberal ideas than conservative ones. How do we instill more conservative and libertarian ideas into schools? Talk to your school board member and find out what books the kids are reading. Suggest at a meeting that they be exposed to a plethora of ideas and not just one or two. Donate books to the school library that are conservative or libertarian in nature. I take right-leaning books to my local bookstore for resale or to put them in the free bin just to give the place some ideological diversity. Perhaps you can do the same at your local schools. Run for school board or support those who you think might be willing to balance conservative and liberal ideas in schools.

That point made, there are many good places to read or learn more about conservative culture. I will give my suggestions and turn the floor over to others who can widen this selection. Science fiction is a good place to start (though I am not a big fan, many people are!). Try Robert Heinlein’s books if you have not already done so. [2] Starship Troopers and [3] The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress are good places to start. Or try Venor Vinge works such as Singularity and Rainbow’s End. (Here’s [4] an interview my husband and I did with him here.) Orson Scott Card’s books also might be of interest to you; as a layperson when it comes to science fiction, I [5] enjoyed interviewing him about Empire, a fascinating thriller set in 2008 that tells the story of what will happen if the political polarization in America continues to divide this country on the issues. In terms of music, try John Ondrasik’s (Five for Fighting) albums. (You can listen to music clips and our [6] interview with him here.) John writes pro-American songs that I find very beautiful and may or may not be your cup of tea. What about Firefly by Tim Minear, who talks [7] here about his work? There is so much more that I do not have room for.

So, PJM readers, can you help our emailer with more suggestions on where to find conservative culture? What books, magazines, shows, music, movies, etc., do you consume to get your dose of conservative ideas? Do you organize or belong to any groups that have conservative or libertarian ideas? Lastly, how can we reach out and support more right-leaning culture?

_______________________________________________________________

If you have a question you would like answered, please leave it below or email me at [8] askdrhelen@hotmail.com. Your questions may be edited for length and clarity. Please note that your first name only or no name at all will be used to identify your question — if you want me to use your name, tell me; otherwise you will be referred to by your first name or as “a reader,” etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ask-dr-helen-where-is-conservative-culture/

URLs in this post:
[1] an article: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0505/032.html
[2] Starship Troopers: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0441783589?ie=UTF8&tag=wwwviolentkicom&linkCode=as2&cam
p=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0441783589
[3] The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312863551?ie=UTF8&tag=wwwviolentkicom&linkCode=as2&cam
p=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0312863551
[4] an interview : http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2006/04/podcast-with-vernor-vinge.html
[5] enjoyed: http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2006/11/podcast-interview-orson-scott-card.html
[6] interview with him here: http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2007/02/interview-with-john-ondrasik-five-for.html
[7] here about his work: http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2006/02/podcast-on-creativity-writing-and.html
[8] askdrhelen@hotmail.com: mailto:askdrhelen@hotmail.com

[Thucydides]

Knowledge and understanding are powerful weapons once harnessed:

http://thecanadianrepublic.blogspot.com/2008/12/why-conservatives-must-abandon-anti.html

Saturday, December 20, 2008
Why Conservatives Must Abandon Anti-Intellectualism & Reclaim The Realm Of The Mind

On one level, I can appreciate why so many North American conservatives have chosen to turn up their noses at academics. Having spent the majority of my adult life dealing with the so-called 'intelligentsia,' I can confirm that they are, to generalize, an impossible group of garrulous and anorchid weasels. The few scholars who are able to scramble out of the pit of evil that is modern day pragmatism do so only to embrace some trendy political philosophy, typically Kantian or some idealistic derivative thereof, that is so entirely divorced from reality that one is left to wonder whether they can still be said to live on earth.

That said, it would be unwise for the right to abandon the realm of philosophy in protest. As a post at The New Clarion points out, just look at the influence one blue-collar man who has read Austrian economics had on the American election:

    Just think: one plumber who has read Mises rocked the Obama campaign for days. If one educated American can have such an effect, imagine what would happen if just 5% of Americans read good economics and good philosophy. The welfare state would be seriously challenged. It might even be over.

The author's point is well taken. If 1.65 million (or approximately 5%) of Canadian citizens had read any decent economics or philosophy before the last Canadian election or even during the coalition crisis, is there any chance whatever that the Conservatives could have failed to secure a significantly stronger mandate?

I wrote in a recent post that I couldn't understand why Keynesianism has remained so popular in Canada despite its thorough refutation and the existence of profoundly more rational alternative economic models. After giving it some thought, however, I have concluded that at least some portion of the blame must be laid at the feet of those individuals who choose to base their opinions on floating abstractions and refuse to ground themselves in reality. That criticism is meant for both the left and the right. In fact, perhaps it should apply most to the alleged defenders of capitalism, particularly those currently involved with the US Republican Party, whose arguments in favour of laissez faire economics consists largely of religious hokum and half-understood snatches of Adam Smith.

The solution to our problem is to promote the pursuit of philosophy, not to abandon academia to our enemies. The solution is to reclaim the realm of the mind from the pragmatists, postmodernists, and idealists, not to allow them victory by default. As a commenter at The New Clarion puts it, all you have to do to save the world is think.

[Kirkhill]

But in this debate over intellectualism versus anti-intellectualism, or as Thomas Reid, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin and Immanuel Kant would have it (and Mike Harris?) Common Sense is the debate over the philosophy or the philosophers?

The Britain of my youth was death against intellectuals - although there were many intellectuals there.  But the last thing that anyone would put on their calling card was "Intellectual".  That seemed a very "European" conceit to us, to declare yourself an Intellectual.  It would get you laughed out of both the pub and the club.

These days I am struck by how many people will cheerfully describe themselves as Intellectuals.

By and large these are people that have a track record of "Doing" very little.  They have spent a lifetime in criticism and never had to apply their principles to reality and face consequences.

They regularly denigrate the "wisdom of the mob", or common sense and as a consequence fail to understand concepts like populism and the stock market or even pragmatism and the art of compromise.

My problem with "Intellectuals" of the left or the right is their inherent belief in their rightness and the need for their principles to prevail. 

They are dangerous.

[Thucydides]

I think the issue is more education vs intellectualism: an educated public will be less susceptible to demagogues of any stripe and be able to examine and judge issues on the facts and their own merits.

Otherwise we get Global Warming hysteria, "Peak oil", Keynesian "stimulus" packages, etc.......

[Kirkhill]

Two links to previous posts of mine:

My personal favourite statistic is the comparison between the number of public libraries in Ontario in the 1940s (>400) versus Quebec (<10).  That wasn't a result of federal policies or anglo policies.  That was a result of conscious decisions by the "elite".

  Source

And

In William Johnson's translation of the Nemni's "Young Trudeau" ".....almost all the students (at Trudeau's alma mater St-Jean de Brebeuf), including Trudeau, ended up with identical values with respect to Catholicism and French-Canadian nationalism.  And they were convinced that they reached these values of their own free will.  How did the Jesuits of Brebeuf succeed in putting their distinctive imprint on students like Pierre Trudeau?.......The school libraries were notable above all for the important works of literature that, censored by the Church, were missing from the shelves.  To bring any book into the college premises required written approval by the college authority, unless the book was on the program.  Any book without that approval was confiscated.  "The bad book: that was enemy number one," recalled Georges-Emile Lapalme, who in 1961 would become Quebec's first minister of culture."  pp 48-49.

  Source

That 400/10 ratio for me defines the difference between the Two Solitudes, a Canadian expression of an International phenomenon.  It is the dfference between the world of educated miners in which my Grandfather grew up and the cultural elite that spawned Pierre Trudeau.

It is the difference between seeking your own answers and waiting for answers to be provided.

It is the difference between controlling the message to impose order and embracing chaos and disorder as a viable system.

It is the difference between searching for wisdom and accepting the wisdom of the mob and the market.

It is the difference between the authoritarians (of left and right, fascist, communist or socialist) and the classical liberals.
 

[Thucydides]

Jerry Pournelle:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/2008/Q4/view550.html#Friday

There are often insightful articles in The American Conservative, but for me there's too much glee when liberals and neocons make disastrous errors. Russell Kirk taught us that we ought to approach defects in our nations as we would the wounds of a father. The neocons were useful allies during the Cold War, but the term "neo-conservative" always was a contradiction in terms. American Conservatives have some common interests with neocons, but we should not forget their Trotskyite origins. It's a bit odd: some of the former Communists, like Whitaker Chambers, came to their senses and became actual conservatives; but they were almost all actual Communists, members of CPUSA and under Party Discipline. Most of the neo-cons were Trotskyites or came from Trotskyite families (many being too young to have any notion of what things were like back in the Glory Days of the Trotskyites) and when they left their affiliations they didn't give up the notion that the world could be remade by dedicated revolutionaries and social engineering; that if they got control of the government they could do something wonderful. Give me the sword of state and I will make a more beautiful world.

Real conservatives understand that control of government isn't the key to making a wonderful world. At best we can get rid of some obstacles and give people opportunities to improve their lives. One would think that a study of history would show that, but apparently a lot of smart people continue to believe that they can remake not just their city, or county, or state, or nation, but the whole world, and all they need is control of the army and the tax collectors. Actually they don't think that way: they think about the wonderful things they can do, and forget that to do them they need tax collectors, and to support the tax collectors they need police, and behind the police stands the Army, prison, and the hangman. (Of course we don't have hangmen any more. We're more humane now. Progress.)

Government can protect some people from bad guys. It doesn't always do that and never does it perfectly, but it can, sometimes, do that.  It can, sometimes, as Adam Smith notes, undertake projects that have great benefit to all with little benefit to any one person -- he had in mind roads and canals and fire departments, not the over-all direction of the economy. Alas, it doesn't take a lot of bad thinking to expand that list, and everyone does. After all, if we can put a man on the moon, surely we can give every child a world class university prep education, can't we? Not just in the United States, but everywhere. And guess what: all the university professors, both tenured and wannabe, agree completely, and rub their hands in anticipation -- since of course they won't be paid by those who will benefit from universal university education, but by the taxpayers who won't be asked what they think about having everyone go to university and get a degree if they want to become a manager at Jack In The Box. The largest joke is that even the taxpayers can't pony up enough, and everyone who goes to these overpaid institutions will get to pony up a grand a month for the rest of their lives; this in exchange for the pretended education they get in order to get the credentials that prove they are educated and worthy of having a job. Of course that credential can lead to one of the coveted positions among the governing class.

Now if we just had some means for certification of expertise that didn't require credentials, things might change. I don't look for that to happen soon. The purpose of government is to pay government workers and their allies; which means the real purpose of government is to collect the money to pay government workers and their allies. Just as the purpose of the school system is to pay members of the teachers unions.

I started this as a way to distinguish myself from The American Conservative magazine; I didn't intend it to be an essay in gloom. I'll cheer up sometime. Alas, the analysis  of foreign policy under the neoClintons has a scary logic that I haven't yet untangled, which means they may be correct. And that really is scary: Wilsonian policies during a Depression with China and India growing and growing.

Despair is a sin.

And Happy New Year.

[Thucydides]

Classical Liberal (AKA Conservative) values are actually similar; all these prescriptions can be applied to our situation as well despite the lack of a well written and clear cut document like the Declaration of Liberty and the Constitution of the United States:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123086011787848029.html

Conservatives Can Unite Around the Constitution
The coalition that supported Reagan is as viable as ever.
 
By PETER BERKOWITZ

After their dismal performance in November, conservatives are taking stock. As they debate the causes that have driven them into the political wilderness and as they contemplate paths out, they should also take heart. After all, election 2008 shows that our constitutional order is working as designed.

The Constitution presupposes a responsive electorate, and respond the electorate did to the vivid memory of a spendthrift and feckless Republican Congress; to a stalwart but frequently ineffectual Republican president; and to a Republican presidential candidate who -- for all his mastery of foreign affairs, extensive Washington experience, and honorable public service -- proved incapable of crafting a coherent and compelling message.

Indeed, while sorting out their errors and considering their options, conservatives of all stripes would be well advised to concentrate their attention on the constitutional order and the principles that undergird it, because maintaining them should be their paramount political priority.

A constitutional conservatism puts liberty first and teaches the indispensableness of moderation in securing, preserving and extending its blessings. The constitution it seeks to conserve carefully defines government's proper responsibilities while providing it with the incentives and tools to perform them effectively; draws legitimacy from democratic consent while protecting individual rights from invasion by popular majorities; assumes the primacy of self-interest but also the capacity on occasion to rise above it through the exercise of virtue; reflects, and at the same time refines, popular will through a complex scheme of representation; and disperses and blends power among three distinct branches of government as well as among federal and state governments the better to check and balance it. The Constitution and the nation that has prospered under it for 220 years demonstrate that conserving and enlarging freedom and democracy depends on weaving together rival interests and competing goods.

Unfortunately, contrary to the Constitution's lesson in moderation, the two biggest blocs in the conservative coalition are tempted to conclude that what is needed now is greater purity in conservative ranks. Down that path lies disaster.

Some social conservatives point to the ballot initiatives this year in Arizona, California and Florida that rejected same-sex marriage as evidence that the country is and remains socially conservative, and that any deviation from the social conservative agenda is politically suicidal. They overlook that whereas in California's 2000 ballot initiative 61% of voters rejected same-sex marriage, in 2008 only 52% of voters in the nation's most populous state opposed the proposition. Indeed, most trend lines suggest that the public is steadily growing more accepting of same-sex marriage, with national polls indicating that opposition to it, also among conservatives, is weakest among young voters.

Meanwhile, more than a few libertarian-leaning conservatives are disgusted by Republican profligacy. They remain uncomfortable with or downright opposed to the Bush administration's support in 2004 for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, and its continuation of the Clinton administration's moratorium on government funding of embryonic stem-cell research.

In addition, many are still angry about the Republican-led intervention by the federal government in the 2005 controversy over whether Terri Schiavo's husband could lawfully remove the feeding tubes that were keeping his comatose wife alive. These libertarian conservatives entertain dreams of a coalition that jettisons social conservatives and joins forces with moderates and independents of libertarian persuasion.

But the purists in both camps ignore simple electoral math. Slice and dice citizens' opinions and voting patterns in the 50 states as you like, neither social conservatives nor libertarian conservatives can get to 50% plus one without the aid of the other.

Yet they, and the national security hawks who are also crucial to conservative electoral hopes, do not merely form a coalition of convenience. Theirs can and should be a coalition of principle, and a constitutional conservatism provides the surest ones.

The principles are familiar: individual freedom and individual responsibility, limited but energetic government, economic opportunity and strong national defense. They are embedded in the Constitution and flow out of the political ideas from which it was fashioned. They were central to Frank Meyer's celebrated fusion of traditionalist and libertarian conservatism in the 1960s. And they inspired Ronald Reagan's consolidation of conservatism in the 1980s.

Short-term clashes over priorities and policies are bound to persist. But championing these principles is the best means over the long term for conserving the political conditions hospitable to traditional morality, religious faith, and the communities that nourish them. And it is also the best means over the long term for conserving the political conditions that promote free markets, and the economic growth and expanded opportunity free markets bring.

Moreover, a constitutional conservatism provides a framework for developing a distinctive agenda for today's challenges to which social conservatives and libertarian conservatives can both, in good conscience, subscribe. Leading that agenda should be:

- An economic program, health-care reform, energy policy and protection for the environment grounded in market-based solutions.

- A foreign policy that recognizes America's vital national security interest in advancing liberty abroad but realistically calibrates undertakings to the nation's limited knowledge and restricted resources.

- A commitment to homeland security that is as passionate about security as it is about law, and which is prepared to responsibly fashion the inevitable, painful trade-offs.

- A focus on reducing the number of abortions and increasing the number of adoptions.

- Efforts to keep the question of same-sex marriage out of the federal courts and subject to consideration by each state's democratic process.

- Measures to combat illegal immigration that are emphatically pro-border security and pro-immigrant.

- A case for school choice as an option that enhances individual freedom while giving low-income, inner-city parents opportunities to place their children in classrooms where they can obtain a decent education.

- A demand that public universities abolish speech codes and vigorously protect liberty of thought and discussion on campus.

- The appointment of judges who understand that their function is to interpret the Constitution and not make policy, and, therefore, where the Constitution is most vague, recognize the strongest obligation to defer to the results of the democratic process.

If they honor the imperatives of a constitutional conservatism, both social conservatives and libertarian conservatives will have to bite their fair share of bullets as they translate these goals into concrete policy. They will, though, have a big advantage: Moderation is not only a conservative virtue, but the governing virtue of a constitutional conservatism.

Mr. Berkowitz is a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. An expanded version of this article is forthcoming in Policy Review.

[E.R. Campbell]

I do not believe that American conservatism – which I define as a mix of near libertarians, classical liberals (advocates of individual rights (including privacy), fiscal prudence and small government), America first or  near nativists (nearly throwbacks to the “Know Nothings[url]”) and the religious right – can or should exist much longer.

There never was any intellectually acceptable reason to unite classical liberals with, for example, the religious right – their views are diametrically opposed, one to the other. It is a marriage made in hell.

The grouping of the classical liberals with the America first faction is equally problematical because the latter must end up being ‘big government conservatives’ a la George W Bush – someone with whom, as it (his policies) transpired, real classical liberals do not want to be associated.

The libertarians, America firsters and the religious right should all be left, by the Republican Party, to go their own ways. The Republicans should focus on rebuilding the independent (of big government) spirit that built modern America. Independence means that one keeps big collectives – like bureaucracies and churches – at arm’s length. Independence is not anti-communitarianism; in fact real American ‘independence’ (rather counter-intuitively) embraced local, community based self-help programmes as ‘better’ (more efficient and effective) than anything that came out of the county seat or the state or national capitols. Independence, in the 21st century, means recapturing the ‘small town’ values of thrift, trust in neighbours, responsibility, humility and hard work. That's not a bad base for any political party.
   

[Infanteer]

There never was any intellectually acceptable reason to unite classical liberals with, for example, the religious right – their views are diametrically opposed, one to the other. It is a marriage made in hell.

Isn't that what Stephen Harper is trying to do?

[E.R. Campbell]

Isn't that what Stephen Harper is trying to do?

That's certainly what a lot of Conservatives (and Liberals, too) believe.

I'm not so sure.

First off, the religious right in Canada is smaller and less well organized than it is in the USA and, except for the CPC, it has no place to go except e.g The Christian Heritage Party or wherever Focus on the Family tells 'em to go.

Second, I think Harper wants to drive the Conservatives to the moderate middle, away from the religious right.

Thus, I suspect that, notwithstanding his own (perhaps strongly held) religious principles, Harper wants to marginalize the religious right in Canada, in favour of more tradition (blue) Conservative values: small town, small business, etc.

[Thucydides]

American Conservatives need to regroup and redefine themselves (or get back to first principles). Newt Gingrich has something to say about that:

http://strongconservative.blogspot.com/2009/01/conservative-way-forward.html

The Conservative Way Forward

The current GOP leadership is clueless. I supported Newt Gingrich for president in 2008 although he didn't run, but I'm praying he will in 2012. Hopefully, democracy in America will still exist then. Watch Gingrich's very informative and challenging address to ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) HERE.

Let me suggest a very radical first idea that perfectly fits the reason ALEC was founded. If you would go home and identify every stupid thing the federal government is requiring you to do which wastes money, and offer them a swap: if they would pass the omnibus smart-government-and-waste avoidance act that liberated you from all the federal regulations that are stupid, you wouldn’t need them to pass you a stimulus package to send you cash because you would save more than enough cash by not having to let them micromanage you.

America, and most western governments (Canada included), are trapped in the utter stupidity of bureaucratic regulation which cripples business, stifles creativity, prolongs suffering, increases poverty, limits individual accomplishment, and endangers lives. Yes, it even COSTS lives.

Gingrich points out, "We won the Second World War in forty-four months. From December the 7th 1941, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, to victory over Japan in August of 1945 is three years and eight months. We beat Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in three years and eight months. It recently took 23 years to add a fifth runway to the Atlanta airport. You can’t compete in the world if you are determined to be stupid. It’s a very major problem."

The disaster known as Detroit only graduates 26% of its students, and continues to elect Democrats as it has for 58 years straight. Watch the Gingrich video linked above, it's worth it! We, not conservatives or liberals, need to make government work better because our civilization will deteriorate if we don't and our future could be in jeopardy, indeed our freedom could be doomed if we don't.

[Thucydides]

The rule of law is important:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/05/023548.php

The meaning of Chrysler
 
May 13, 2009 Posted by Scott at 5:50 AM

The Obama administration's misbehavior in the matter of Chrysyler is fundamentally inconsistent with the Constitution and the rule of law. In today's Wall Street Journal, Professor Todd Zywicki explains:

    The close relationship between the rule of law and the enforceability of contracts, especially credit contracts, was well understood by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. A primary reason they wanted it was the desire to escape the economic chaos spawned by debtor-friendly state laws during the period of the Articles of Confederation. Hence the Contracts Clause of Article V of the Constitution, which prohibited states from interfering with the obligation to pay debts. Hence also the Bankruptcy Clause of Article I, Section 8, which delegated to the federal government the sole authority to enact "uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies."

    The Obama administration's behavior in the Chrysler bankruptcy is a profound challenge to the rule of law. Secured creditors -- entitled to first priority payment under the "absolute priority rule" -- have been browbeaten by an American president into accepting only 30 cents on the dollar of their claims. Meanwhile, the United Auto Workers union, holding junior creditor claims, will get about 50 cents on the dollar.

    The absolute priority rule is a linchpin of bankruptcy law. By preserving the substantive property and contract rights of creditors, it ensures that bankruptcy is used primarily as a procedural mechanism for the efficient resolution of financial distress. Chapter 11 promotes economic efficiency by reorganizing viable but financially distressed firms, i.e., firms that are worth more alive than dead.

    Violating absolute priority undermines this commitment by introducing questions of redistribution into the process. It enables the rights of senior creditors to be plundered in order to benefit the rights of junior creditors.

The case of Chrysler illustrates a proposition on which we have elaborated here previously and that warrants repetition. For the past hundred years the attack on private property has been central to the Progressive assault on the Constitution, beginning with J. Allen Smith's The Spirit of American Government (1907) and continuing most importantly with Charles Beard's An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution (1913).

Smith and Beard portrayed the constitutional protection of private property by the founders as the weapon of an elite interested in preserving its privilege. (By the time scholars got around to debunking Beard's book in particular -- few serious works of history have been as definitively disproved as Beard's -- the damage had been done.) Today the Progressive assault on property rights continues in the scholarship of liberals such as Obama administration official Cass Sunstein.

The American Revolution is of course the appropriate place to begin to understand the role of property rights in the American legal order. The American Revolution was in part a rebellion against the feudal order, remnants of which still prevailed in Great Britain. In the feudal order all property belonged to the King; the King retained ownership but conditionally granted the use of property to his subjects.

By contrast, the idea that men possessed the right to acquire and enjoy property separate and apart from the prerogative of sovereign government was one of the "unalienable rights" grounded in "the laws of Nature and Nature's God" at the heart of the American Revolution. In the founders' view, property rights did not emanate from government. Rather, they emanated from the nature of man, and it was the function of government to protect the rights conferred on man by nature.

Indeed, Jefferson characterized property rights as "the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone [of] the free exercise of industry and the fruits acquired by it." As Jefferson's comment suggests, the right to acquire property was the critical right for the founders; it made property rights the friend of the poor by allowing them to earn and safeguard wealth ("the fruits acquired by" work).

Accordingly, when the founders crafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights, they provided numerous protections of property rights. Congress was authorized to protect the intellectual property of writers and inventors through the issuance of patents and copyrights. The states were prohibited from impairing private contractual obligations.

Further, putting property on a par with life and liberty, the Constitution prohibited the government from taking property in any criminal case without due process. And in the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, the government was prohibited from taking private property for public use without just compensation; the government was not even afforded the power to take private property for anything but public use.

The founders extended these and other specific protections to the property of Americans in the fundamental law of the United States for the sake of freedom. The freedom to exercise and profit from one's abilities without regard to caste or class was in the view of the founders the essence of freedom.

As James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, "the first object of government" is the "protection of the diversity in the faculties [abilities] of men, from which the rights of property originate." In the eyes of the founders, the protection of property rights was a bulwark for the poor in assuring them that the wealth earned with the sweat of their brow could not arbitrarily be expropriated by the heavy hand of government.

It was precisely on this ground that Lincoln sought to persuade Americans of the injustice of slavery. Lincoln persistently argued that slavery was a species of tyranny enacting the ancient injustice of the principle "you work, and I eat." He often spoke of the heart of slavery as a denial of property rights: "It is the same tyrannical principle that says, 'You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it.'"

When Stephen Douglas mocked Lincoln during their debates for believing in the equality of a black slave with white citizens, Lincoln said: "In some respects she certainly is not my equal; but in her natural right to eat the bread she earns with her own hands without asking leave of anyone else, she is my equal, and the equal of all others."

The founders' study of history taught them that majority rule was susceptible to tyranny and that the protection of property rights was an indispensable condition for the preservation of freedom and for the growth of national wealth. The founders observed that tyrannical rule and material scarcity had by and large been the fate of man through the ages. They saw the confiscation of property by government in the name of the sovereign power of the state as an old and sorry story. Through the protection of property rights they meant to forge a new order of the ages. It lies to us to regain their understanding and act on it.

[Thucydides]

Progressives often think Americans are pirates; maybe they are right after all:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_05_17-2009_05_23.shtml#1242820796

A Preposterous Suggestion: Of TJ, Pirates, and America's Founding

In the course of doing interviews on The Invisible Hook over the last several weeks I’ve had a number of people ask me if I thought America’s Founding Fathers might have been influenced by early 18th-century pirates in framing the United States government.

Before you laugh, let me explain . . .

In the book I analyze early 18th-century pirates’ system of social organization, the basic principles of which are, in several important respects, I suggest quite similar to those of our own.

The centerpiece of pirate governance was a system of constitutional democracy. Before launching a plundering expedition, each crew drew up a written document that stipulated the rules that would govern its members while the pirates remained together. These “articles” also empowered the chief pirate officer--the quartermaster--to enforce the rules, administer proscribed punishments, divide the booty, and so forth. Critically, by making many of these terms explicit, pirate constitutions not only empowered the quartermaster in these duties but also constrained him. He was not free divide plunder anyway he saw fit, for example, arbitrarily bestow social insurance payments on pirates he liked (pirates had an early system of workers' comp), or punish lawbreakers willy-nilly.

In addition to such “constitutional checks” on the quartermaster, pirates also exerted democratic checks on his behavior. Pirates popularly elected the quartermaster and could, and did, democratically remove quartermasters who overstepped their bounds or otherwise acted in ways at odds with the other crewmembers’ interest.

The quartermaster also exercised his authority within the context of a system of piratical separation of powers. While the quartermaster wielded command in cases such as those described above, he wielded no command in times of conflict with potential prizes. Authority in these cases fell to the captain, the other central pirate officer, who pirates also democratically elected and deposed. Notably, pirates’ democratic mechanism for this and other purposes was also established in their constitutions.

The chief pirate officers--the captain and quartermaster--not only had countervailing authorities, they also competed with one another. When pirates deposed an ineffective or otherwise unsuitable captain from command, they could, and sometimes did, elect the quartermaster to this post in his place.

Further, in some cases pirate crewmembers exercised a kind of “judicial review” authority. Where their articles were unclear or silent on certain matters, pirates gathered to interpret and apply the ship’s constitution to the case at hand.

Many of the fundamental features of pirate’s governance system should sound familiar to those acquainted with America’s governance system. They’re not the same, of course. But several of the basic institutions appear to be there, albeit in more rudimentary form.

Perhaps even more strikingly, the basic reason behind pirates’ system of checks and balances is fundamentally the same reasoning behind our system of checks of balances: to simultaneously empower and constrain those we endow with the authority to rule over us.

To keep their criminal enterprise from breaking down, pirates needed “leaders” who could maintain order among them and make certain decisions on behalf of the whole (such as during battle), but could also be prevented from abusing the power crewmembers vested in their hands for this purpose. Pirates were especially wary of this possibility, most of them having formerly sailed as legitimate sailors under the autocratic, and thus often abused, authority of merchant ship captains.

As one pirate put it, “Most of them having suffered formerly from the ill-treatment of Officers, provided thus carefully against any such Evil now they had the choice in themselves . . . for the due Execution thereof they constituted other Officers besides the Captain; so very industrious were they to avoid putting too much Power into the hands of one Man.”

Pirates confronted essentially the same dilemma in setting up their system of governance that James Madison famously described in Federalist 51. As Madison put it, “But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

Madison’s solution to this dilemma was constitutional democracy. “A dependence on the people,” Madison argued, “is no doubt, the primary control on the government.” “ut,” he continued, “experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” “[T]he constant aim is to divide and arrange several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other—that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights.”

This was pirates’ solution as well--but they forged it more than half a century before Madison put pen to paper. Pirates, of course, weren’t the first to invoke this solution. And there’s good reason to think that some of the legitimate world’s early experiences with democracy, separated powers, and so on, may have influenced pirates’ system of governance.

But could the direction of influence have also run the other direction? This is the question I began with. And while, unsurprisingly, I’ve yet to come across direct evidence that any of our Founding Fathers looked to pirate governance in forging America’s system of government, it might be too hasty to totally dismiss this suggestion as well.

I did a quick look to see if there might be any evidence that any of the Founders were even aware of pirates’ governance regime . . . .

And there is. Thomas Jefferson owned a copy of both of the two most important late 17th-century and early 18th-century books that describe pirate governance, Alexander Exquemelin’s Buccaneers of America, and Captain Charles Johnson’s General History of the Pyrates.

Does this prove that pirates’ constitutional democracy influenced Jefferson? Of course not. For one thing, Jefferson had many books in his personal library. That doesn’t mean all of them played a role in his thinking about American government. Further, I don’t know when Jefferson acquired these books. His copies were published (in 1774) before the Declaration of Independence; but that doesn’t tell us when Jefferson bought or read them.

But, at least in principle, it does suggest TJ could have “had a little captain in him.” The mere prospect is tantalizing enough for me . . .

[Thucydides]

Jerry Pournelle reflects on the differences between Parties and movements. We seem to have a similar disconnect between the "Conservatives and the Conservative Party:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/2009/Q2/view574.html

I am neither a great fan nor an enemy of Rush Limbaugh, but I agree with him more often than not. My major criticism is his delivery, which is loud and insistent. I prefer a less strident atmosphere and what Possony used to call rational discussion. Clearly Limbaugh's method works --he has an enormously larger audience than I do, and many more dedicated fans and subscribers (although I don't mean to slight those who support this place. Thanks to all who subscribe and renew.)

He had two items today that I thought worth reflection. The first was purely pragmatic regarding health care reform: before we deliver another 15% of the GDP to Obama's management team, would it not be better to wait a bit to see how well his present policies work? It's not clear that the management team understands the economy, but they have certainly been given more power over it than any American government has ever had. Obama says that if we don't do his health care reform soon, we never will. I question that. If what the Obama team is doing works, Obama will surely not lose popularity, and there will be far more support for the notion of turning this knotty problems over to a team that has successfully managed economic recovery. What's the great hurry?

His second question was, given the great success of what he calls "our team" in 1980, and then again in 1994, how did we get into this situation in which the Republicans are at a low below anything since Watergate? Is conservatism dead? But of course it is not: the Republican Party, after Gingrich's departure, was anything but conservative. The fact is that about twice as many people describe themselves as conservative as call themselves liberal, even though there are far more Democrats than Republicans.

The failure, Limbaugh said, was ours: [colour=yellow]we didn't teach the conservative principles well enough. We did not persuade -- particularly we did not persuade the Republican leadership that the principles are true.[/yellow] There may be a need for compromises in some places and some cases. Government is after all the art of the possible. But that does not mean that one adopts disastrous policies simply to gain temporary popularity.

I have said it before: movements (I fail to come up with a better word; "philosophies" is pretentious, and ideologies is precisely the wrong word to describe the conservative movements) have the purpose of teaching. Parties have the purpose of capturing control of government; of winning elections. Party leadership is often subject to Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy. Successful political managers are hired to win, not to be true to philosophical principles.  There have been exceptions; I was one of them as were some of Reagan's closer advisors like Lyn Nofziger. I can attest to the temptation to compromise principles to preserve a track record; fortunately I didn't make political management a career (wasn't even tempted, actually).

Given the overwhelming pervasiveness of liberalism in the public schools, colleges, universities, and the media, getting across the basic principles of conservatism -- I'd say getting across the basic principles of a realistic appreciation of the way the world works -- is difficult; more difficult than some of us understood it would be. I've been going back through some of A Step Farther Out, and I see that a lot. It seemed to me obvious that cheap energy plus freedom would soon result in a technology boom that would carry us to space, where both energy and material resources are abundant.

Twenty years after that, Charles Sheffield and I wrote Higher Education, which has a different view of the future, but is still optimistic.

Possony used to say "You either believe in rational discussion or you don't." I have to remind myself of that frequently.

[Thucydides]

I suggest Canada has the same problem, and needs the same soution:

http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/philip_howard/2009/06/spring_cleaning_in_washington.html

Spring Cleaning in Washington

Just a few months ago, members of Congress took turns wagging their fingers at CEOs of the automakers for not making tough choices--not shedding "legacy costs," not making products consumers wanted, not cutting bloated bureaucracies.  Detroit had become self-referential, unable to compete because it was unwilling to deal with its internal constituents.

Now Washington faces a series of domestic crises that will shape the health of our society for decades--unaffordable healthcare, balkanized financial regulation, and a mind-boggling deficit, to name three.  But Washington will likely fail--indeed, may even make the problems worse--unless it deals with its own "legacy costs" and bloated bureaucracies, which currently make it impossible to achieve new focus and efficiencies.

Detroit is Google compared to Washington.  Year after year, Congress makes laws but almost never repeals them.  Washington is like a huge monument to legacy costs.  Laws from the Depression will send tens of billions in unnecessary subsidies this year to farmers, organized labor and other groups thought to be in need--80 years ago.  Bloat is also notorious--it's nearly impossible to fire anyone under civil service laws, so layers of middle management have grown exponentially.  Professor Paul Light found 32 levels in some agencies (compared to 5 levels in most well-run enterprises).

All this accumulated law--about 300,000 pages of federal statutes and regulations--operates as a form of central planning.  It bogs people down in bureaucracy.  In healthcare, the labyrinthian requirements of Medicare, Medicaid, HIPAA, plus the equally dense, and often conflicting requirements of 50 states, plus the insurance company red tape, make it impossible for people to deliver care efficiently.  Add to that bureaucratic nightmare the ever-present fear of being hauled into court whenever a sick person gets sicker, and you have a system that looks like it was designed for frustration and waste.  (See here for principles needed to climb out of this rut.)

The inertial forces that make it hard to achieve change in Washington, in the best of circumstances, become a kind of invincible fortress when reinforced by thousands upon thousands of pages of binding law.  Each of those provisions is zealously guarded by special interest groups, and changing any word of a statute requires the votes of 218 members of the House and (generally) 60 senators. 

Faced with legions of special interests, Congress is trying to fix healthcare by piling new requirements on top of the old ones.  But this won't address the underlying problems of efficiency, any more than it could in Detroit.  To restore focus and efficiency, Congress must first clean out what's there--not to eliminate the goals of existing regulation but to put them in a coherent framework that real people can understand and internalize. 

Dealing with the sclerosis of accumulated regulation, however, is not something our leaders have any experience with.  Most of the historic legal reforms of the past century were written on a new slate.  The Progressives at the turn of the 19th century imposed worker safety and food safety laws to fill the regulatory void of laissez-faire.  Roosevelt's New Deal provided social safety nets where there were none, and job programs in agencies that didn't exist before.  The civil rights movement led to laws against discrimination where there were none.   

We don't have the luxury of a clean slate--healthcare, schools, and the financial sector are all mired in a bureaucratic jungle.  Al Gore had the right idea with his Reinventing Government initiative, but he was trying to simplify what was there.  The imperative now is much more radical, and urgent--to solve society-wide crises of affordability in healthcare, accountability in the financial markets, and disarray in schools. 

Making sense of the current problems requires not just new laws--but a willingness to undo old laws in order to build coherent new structures.  The litmus test is not whether some expert can draw a complicated chart showing how law requires this or that, but whether real people (including doctors, teachers, and financial regulators officials) feel liberated to focus on doing their jobs properly.  The closest analog in history are recodifications that occur periodically--almost always releasing enormous improvements in productivity.  In ancient Rome, the emperor Justinian is best known for taking "the vast mass of juristic writings which served only to obscure the law," and rewriting them into a coherent code.   Napoleon considered his "Napoleonic Code" to be his finest achievement, and the simplified set of principles that his experts created is still the legal foundation for most European countries.  America's Uniform Commercial Code, developed in the 1950s and adopted by all states, brought consistency and efficiency to a tangled web of state laws that impeded free flow of commerce. 

The current debate is missing its most important element of effective reform--the need to phase out many existing laws and regulations so that our leaders can build structures from the ground up that focus on human responsibility and accountability.  This is what observers such as Ezekiel Emanuel have called for in healthcare (see here), and what Richard Posner seems to be suggesting for financial reform (see here).  Two areas I have worked on--healthcare justice and authority of teachers--both require abandoning existing legal conventions in order to meet our public goals.  To restore trust needed in healthcare interactions, patients and doctors need health courts that are reliable to sort out good care from bad care.  To restore a school culture of order and respect, teachers need to be released from bureaucracy and the threat of a legal proceeding for ordinary daily disciplinary decisions. 

Getting anything done in Washington is notoriously difficult, and the instinct is always to do whatever can be agreed upon in the sausage factory, and then to collapse from exhaustion.  But that's not good enough this time around.  We can't get there from here.  The failures of our public institutions are built into the current structures and can't be fixed without rebuilding those structures.   

Future historians will look on this time as one that was critical to the growth of America in this century.  Meeting the challenge requires building a new foundation of law and regulation that aspires to address our current goals, not to mollify interest groups clinging to past entitlements.  Like Detroit, Washington has to face up to the need to clean out its clogged bureaucracies and start anew.

[E.R. Campbell]

A third interesting piece, from today’s National Post, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/07/18/david-frum-american-conservatism-in-its-decadent-phase.aspx

David Frum: American conservatism in its decadent phase

Posted: July 18, 2009

'What was once a cause has degenerated into a racket'

Washington conservatives who dissent from the party line are often accused of selling out our principles in hope of snagging an invitation to a Georgetown cocktail party.

It costs much, much more than that to buy Washington’s pillars of conservative orthodoxy. Thanks to the brave people at Fedex, the whole world now knows exactly how much more.

Fedex is locked in a Washington legal battle against UPS. I won’t burden you with a lot of unnecessary details, but the issue boils down to this: UPS operates under one set of rules very favorable to unionization, Fedex operates under a different and less favorable set. UPS wants the same law applied to its main competitor. Fedex objects.

Both sides want allies. Fedex thought it had found one in the American Conservative Union. The ACU is not just another conservative outfit. When you hear a member of Congress described as more or less conservative than another, it’s the ACU’s voting index that is being cited. ACU sponsors the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, CPAC, the biggest event on conservatism’s annual calendar.

If ACU joins your side, in other words, you have acquired a formidable friend.

The leaders of ACU know the value of their support. On June 30, they wrote a letter proposing a national campaign on Fedex’s behalf. For a price: US$3.4 million.

Fedex declined to pay. Two weeks later, on July 15, ACU’s chairman David Keene and ACU board member Grover Norquist signed an open letter endorsing UPS’ position. Payback? If so, it prompted a remarkable counter-payback: On July 17, somebody leaked the June 30 demand letter to Mike Allen at Politico.com.

Around the conservative world, the reaction to this naked attempt to sell political influence has been outrage and surprise.

But really: The only surprise is that anybody is surprised.

The ACU itself, as well as its officers and board members, have previously taken positions in other intra-corporate battles: in favor of Microsoft and against Netscape, in favor of AT&T and against Verizon.

Officers of the ACU also took a central role in the epic 1998-99 round of electricity deregulation, a contest so lavish that some wit called it a “two Lexus fight” — meaning that every lobbyist involved could look forward to a bonus big enough to buy a new Lexus not only for himself or herself, but also for his or her spouse. The details of that fight are a little complicated, but they are worth the attention of anybody interested in American conservatism in its decadent phase.

Historically, electrical utilities had been regulated by the states. But as technological improvements made it possible to distribute electricity over wider and wider distances, some suggested that it might be more rational for electrical distribution to be regulated federally, in the same way as natural gas distribution is.

Investor-owned utilities preferred the status quo. They had developed very comfortable relationships with their state regulators, to put it mildly.

State legislators also preferred the status quo. Electrical utilities give generously to fund state elections. If control over electricity moved from state capitals to Washington, so too would the utilities’ political contributions.

In the middle of this debate appeared a group called Citizens for State Power. CSP’s leadership overlapped fascinatingly with the leadership of the American Conservative Union. CSP leaders wrote op-eds and articles, spoke to editorial boards, invited old comrades from the Reagan years to lunch. They invoked the venerable principle of state sovereignty, and bemoaned this latest power grab by the special interests in Washington D.C.

Washington in those years felt like a giant Tupperware party, where people you had known for years were suddenly using that friendship to sell you something you would never have bought from anybody else.

A total of US$17-million flowed through CSP in 1998-2002, including US$160,000 paid to the lobbying firm that employed David Keene, the chairman of the American Conservative Union.

The scale of the CSP effort went undisclosed at the time, but the gist of the story was obvious enough to anybody who cared to know. Too few conservatives did care to know — or else decided it was bad form to mention it.

It had better be mentioned. The activities of the ACU have damaged the good name of every American conservative organization. The next time conservatives take a stand on an issue that helps or hurts an industry or firm, everybody will have reason to ask: Who’s paying you this time? Or are you exacting revenge from somebody who opted not to pay you?

What was once a cause has degenerated into a racket. Fedex exposed the racketeering. Now conservatives must make the fateful choice whether or not to cleanse themselves of the racketeers.

©David Frum
dfrum@aei.org

This is, as Frum says, not too surprising. Conservatism, in both Canada and the USA, needs more than just work. It needs to rediscover its classical, 19th century liberal roots and core values. It needs to, must discard and destroy the wholly illiberal, collectivist, busybody influences of the “religious right;” it must rediscover enlightened capitalism and replace the greed based system currently in vogue in business and labour; it needs to fall back on its small town/small business roots and let the Democrats and the Liberal Party of Canada have big business, big banks, big labour and big government. Conservatives and Republicans should be the parties of the ordinary, little guy who wants to get ahead on his own merits and efforts. 

[Thucydides]

The conservative movement is really about reestablishing connections between people, neighbourhoods and regions. This is hardly a new idea, and here is a bit about how it was replaced and the consequences:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/2009/Q3/view590.html#Wednesday

Tocqueville, The Associations, and Welfare

Tocqueville's Democracy in America is a work few have read, although many cite it. At one time it was assigned in academic oriented high schools, but no more. It's too quaint, and a bit long, for the modern intellectual taste. For all that it remains an influential and important work.

One of his most important observations was that in America much of the activity done by government in Europe was done by private associations. This chapter is worth your attention. It is no longer as true as it was in Tocqueville's time, of course, but it remains an important observation, and a picture of what could be. Much of what we call "welfare" in the US has been and can be done by "the associations". One of Tocqueville's observations is the democratic nature of these associations: in Europe activities that would be headed by government, or by aristocrats and nobles, is done by the ordinary citizenry. The importance of this can't be overstressed. If you would have a republic, you need citizens who believe in their importance to the republic; who think, with reason, that they are valuable; that they are, to use a trite phrase, pillars of the community. To the extent that government takes over those activities which make the country lovely, it undermines the very foundations of the republic.
Nothing, in my opinion, is more deserving of our attention than the intellectual and moral associations of America. The political and industrial associations of that country strike us forcibly; but the others elude our observation, or if we discover them, we understand them imperfectly because we have hardly ever seen anything of the kind. It must be acknowledged, however, that they are as necessary to the American people as the former, and perhaps more so. In democratic countries the science of association is the mother of science; the progress of all the rest depends upon the progress it has made.

Among the laws that rule human societies there is one which seems to be more precise and clear than all others. If men are to remain civilized or to become so, the art of associating together must grow and improve in the same ratio in which the equality of conditions is increased.
              Alexis de Tocqueville

The alternative to free associations of free men is paternalistic government and bureaucracy. The bureaucracy takes away all pride in the work done -- think of those who take care of their aged relatives as state employees, and who strike because their wages are being cut back toward minimum wage -- while not necessarily increasing the quality of the work. Mostly they render superfluous any association other than unionization to improve their wages. The result is predictable.

It would seem that if despotism were to be established among the democratic nations of our days, it might assume a different character; it would be more extensive and more mild; it would degrade men without tormenting them. I do not question that, in an age of instruction and equality like our own, sovereigns might more easily succeed in collecting all political power into their own hands and might interfere more habitually and decidedly with the circle of private interests than any sovereign of antiquity could ever do.

                                   . . .

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned them at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a net-work of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided: men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting: such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd. I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described, might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom; and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people.
                             Tocqueville