A Second Hand Conjecture

Somewhat tortuously, the State Department has congratulated the victory of Hugo Chavez’s referendum to revoke term limits on his rule as a victory for participatory democracy, while faintly recommending a new respect for multiparty pluralism. Consider for a moment if you were to receive official foreign congratulations for your civic virtue, upon learning that a president of the United States had just succeeded in repealing the 22nd Amendment, allowing him to serve forever as permanent head of state. A cold experience, surely.

Congratulating this referendum is an insult to liberal forces in Venezuela which have been battling mightily against long odds and at risk of arrest, to preserve some semblance of a liberal society in a country deeply mired in the grip of crypto-fascist hysteria.

One of the most regrettable ideas of the Bush years was the then president’s bizarre belief that any political outcome was ultimately justifiable if it were arrived at by course of a general election. Something that even the experience of an elected Hamas government in Gaza apparently failed to completely dissuade him of. It’s a pity to learn that we’ve traveled even further down this misbegotten path with a new administration.

It should be understood that it is the liberal dispossition –one that supports and informs constitutional restraint on state power– not the democratic procedure, that distinguishes Western democracy from being the will of a fanatical mob. Liberalism is the soul that makes democracy moral and viable. The United States should not praise any democratic outcome as instinsically worthwhile, as Bush once did. What it should praise are liberal democratic outcomes….and Chavez’s coupling of potential permanence with his already near autocratic authority, is no victory for liberalism.

4 Comments »

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics there are 11.6 million unemployed persons in the United States today. Meanwhile, the current estimate of the total cost of the spending package passed to alleviate this distress is $827 billion.  President Obama has framed his defense of this expenditure largely on job loss grounds. Lately he has gone so far as to warn that without passage of the package in full, the unemployment rate  (currently at 7.6%) could hit double digits.

Let’s assume he’s right. Let’s even assume the total unemployment figure doubles to 23.2 million persons — a number which would likely require massive business failure and the collapse of entire industries to achieve. But for the price of the recovery package to head this off, we could afford to pay each of these 23.2 million future unemployed persons over $35,000 a year…which is almost exactly what the average individual income in the United States was in 2008. But here’s the thing, we wouldn’t have to pay them that, because there aren’t 23.2 million persons unemployed yet. Maybe there will be at some point in the future, but then again maybe there won’t.

The staggering expansion of government spending we are witnessing from those who used to restrict their advocacy to social safety nets for if someone happened to fall, is enough to make you nostalgic. Nostalgic for the days of profligate and wasteful welfare benefits, which seem positively frugal compared to this new invoice. Bring back the caricature welfare queen says me, with her Cadillac in a public housing garage. Incidentally, the base price for a Cadillac CTS is about $35,000 too. We could buy every currently unemployed person two of them with that recovery bill’s price tag.

Looking backward, the great value of the welfare system is that it is reactive, individual and conditional. That is to say, you have to personally lose your job in order to receive federal benefits. Now we’re apparently shifting to a model where massive indirect economic assistance is rendered for people who are currently still employed, because they might become unemployed at some point in the future. I prefer the old model in retrospect.

2 Comments »

I tend to take a liberal attitude toward alternative lifestyles generally. Apart from the moral requirement to protect personal freedom, I like to think they do more to enliven the human experience for spectators, than they do to exert the kind of apocalyptic moral corrosion envisioned by the likes of Robert Bork, et al. But there are occasions I must confess, when the alternatives become so silly that even I must shake my head in dismay at the state of things. It happens that the practice of paraphilic infantilism tests my limits for liberal ataraxy quite well.

Thus meet Heidilynn, a fifty year old AB (adult baby) in California, who has intentionally undone his toilet training through a process of hypnosis. Heidilynn lives his life almost entirely as a female infant you see. But after having spent thousands of dollars on adult-sized high chairs, frilly onesies, and related paraphernalia, a moment of lucidity finally struck him: “This is ridiculous.”

(more…)

1 Comment »

Synova wrote a little post that gets halfway to where I would come down on this perennial parlor game of  the John Galt general strike. Sy recognized that to be successful, such a revolt would realistically be a miserable experience for a society, resulting in bloodshed and economic ruin. But she does not depart from Rand in assuming that the eventual outcome would be desirable. I’d advise the ancient wisdom that if the means are clearly evil in a political project, one should become immediately skeptical of the alleged justice of the ends.

We should also be skeptical of the social assumption for Galt, that there is a definable and rigid division among men into a minority of Platonic creative guardians, and an empowered majority of proletarian oppressors and their craven political servants — and that these factions could have accurate self-recognition of their social roles. I would contend that anyone who thinks of the majority of the people as disposable abstracted parasites, under a constitutional order that explicitly derives its governing powers from the majority consent of the governed, is never selling you anything that’s going to arrive in a happy place.

(more…)

25 Comments »

Photos of Russian kids mounting a street protest against the banning of South Park by the state. This is no small or meaningless act.

As daily experience, one of the worst aspects of living under a repressive fascist regime is how utterly boring it is. It is a horrible experience to be a teenager in a society where every radio station plays only opera, and every television show is a boring panegyric to the wisdom of the regime.

This is an intrinsic hostility to youthful enthusiasms too. In more than one way fascism can be described as a permanent war conducted by the state on the innate liberality and frivolousness of youth. Under fascism, something as light-hearted as South Park becomes “extremist propaganda” because the fascist is altogether incapable of understanding the necessary playfulness of entertainment. He feels the driving necessity to infect everything with deep political significance.

It is by such a course that the abolition of free expression induces the characteristically pervasive and perverse boredom of its societies. This does not only affect youth either, as a society robs itself of its own vitality by repressing its youth’s enthusiasm.

1 Comment »

(photo: Ian Murchison | website)

The nationalization of Fannie & Freddie is often presented as a crisis of faith for the political right, due to its manifest incompatibility with the advertised belief in the “free market.” However, Sunder Katwala at NextLeft cleverly recognizes that it also presents a challenge to orthodoxy on the left, given that the insisted purpose of the nationalization isn’t government ownership, but to rescue businesses for a stable return to the private sector.

(more…)

No Comments »

Echoing a wonderful discussion we had in the fall of 2006 on the nature of Fascism (see here, here and here) Jonah Goldberg writes a book which bristles at the use of the term by the contemporary left. I would really be interested in picking that discussion back up. So anybody interested, please read the previous discussions and tell me what you think. In the meantime, here is the description from Amazon:

Book Description
“Fascists,” “Brownshirts,” “jackbooted stormtroopers”—such are the insults typically hurled at conservatives by their liberal opponents. Calling someone a fascist is the fastest way to shut them up, defining their views as beyond the political pale. But who are the real fascists in our midst?

Liberal Fascism offers a startling new perspective on the theories and practices that define fascist politics. Replacing conveniently manufactured myths with surprising and enlightening research, Jonah Goldberg reminds us that the original fascists were really on the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler’s National Socialism and Mussolini’s Fascism.

Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.

Do these striking parallels mean that today’s liberals are genocidal maniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new racial order? Not at all. Yet it is hard to deny that modern progressivism and classical fascism shared the same intellectual roots. We often forget, for example, that Mussolini and Hitler had many admirers in the United States. W.E.B. Du Bois was inspired by Hitler’s Germany, and Irving Berlin praised Mussolini in song. Many fascist tenets were espoused by American progressives like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR incorporated fascist policies in the New Deal.

Fascism was an international movement that appeared in different forms in different countries, depending on the vagaries of national culture and temperament. In Germany, fascism appeared as genocidal racist nationalism. In America, it took a “friendlier,” more liberal form. The modern heirs of this “friendly fascist” tradition include the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals of Hollywood. The quintessential Liberal Fascist isn’t an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.

These assertions may sound strange to modern ears, but that is because we have forgotten what fascism is. In this angry, funny, smart, contentious book, Jonah Goldberg turns our preconceptions inside out and shows us the true meaning of Liberal Fascism.

(more…)

14 Comments »