Notes on the Iowa Caucus

The internet’s ablaze with analysis of the Iowa Caucus results, so I thought I’d share a few observations of my own on each candidate.

Starting at the bottom of the list, we have one Buddy Roemer, who I don’t know, and… Herman Cain? Cain got fifty-eight votes? Well, we’re off to a weird start,  but I’ll assume (that is, hope) that these were just fifty-eight guys looking for a laugh.

Moving up, Jon Huntsman received 745 votes. Yeah, he didn’t campaign in Iowa, so we’ll see how he does in New Hampshire. I’ve only seen him speak a couple times, but he was intelligent enough to form complete sentences containing coherent thoughts, even without a teleprompter, which would at least make him an improvement over our last two presidents. A friend of mine, whose opinion I mostly trust, really likes him, so I suppose for now he’d be a (distant) second choice for me among this crop of Republicans.

Next, with 5% of the vote, is Michelle Bachmann, who unsurprisingly has halted her campaign. I say “unspurprisingly,” because several of the Fox News analysts I saw last night mentioned that she lacked the resources, both financial and organisational, to support a large campaign. Doesn’t it seem absurd that financial resources are so critical to national elections? Ideally, anyone should be able to run, but who can afford it? (Hint: Those who sell out to special interests, with a few exceptions).

Rick Perry received 10.3% of the vote, and… honestly, I wish he’d have been the one to drop out so he’d quit embarrassing the rest of us Texans. Let the other Texan, the one who’s read a few books, represent the state. Also, I guess 13.3% chose everyone’s favourite serial adulterer, Newt Gingrich, in case no other candidate was enough of an insider. Yeah, I just slung some mud, but I’ll always prefer a candidate with some moral authority over someone with skeletons in the closet.

That leaves us with the top-tier candidates, starting with Dr. Ron Paul with 21.4% support. He is, by far, the candidate I’m most likely to vote for, as are many other voters under thirty – which is great news for libertarians and, for that matter, conservatives. I fear there may be an upper limit for how much support he can garner; he wants to cut almost every pet project the federal government has, which means he also alienates a lot of voting blocs. However, as his young followers grow older and start replacing the established Republicans, they’ll gradually begin to undermine the Neoconservative stranglehold on the Republican party. The best thing that could happen for both conservatives and libertarians would be for the Republican party to collapse tomorrow so a more honest third party could replace it, but the next best would be to alter the direction of the party. It’ll be years before we see such a thing come to fruition, but I’ve no doubt that future candidates similar to Dr. Paul will fare much better thanks to the groundwork his campaign is laying.

Finally, we have Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney in a photo-finish. Santorum is the big surprise, though I hear he, like Bachmann, lacks the resources for a large campaign. After reading about him, I can find a few reasons to dislike his ideas, but expect a lot of the sound and fury from the Left on his supposed social conservatism. For that matter, actual social conservatives may also question the sincerity of  his beliefs. Also, his campaign banner had the slogan “Faith, Family, Freedom,” which he totally stole from this very blog.

Romney still seems, to me, like the inevitable choice, and I guess he’d be my third pick among this lot. Like most everyone else, though, I can’t get enthusiastic one way or another, so, y’know, whatever man. Barack Obama vs. Generic Republican it’ll be. Mostly likely, I’ll just vote for my usual batch of third-party candidates.

I should also mention that Dr. Thomas Fleming has a fuller analysis of Santorum and Romney here, which I highly recommend reading.

Merry Christmas

Today is Christmas Eve, and I considered writing a special post about the Christian tradition in the United States or the insperability of religion and liberty or something along those lines. However, part of the essence of ‘America First’, for me, is that a man’s first duty is to his family and community. This  is the root of the virtue of patriotism, the love of and loyalty to a particular people and place. True, our Lord and Saviour did preach universal love, but charity is only meaningful when it is concrete. So, I’m going to spend this weekend with my family, and I’m sure most of you will do the same.

First, though, let me wish you a merry Christmas, and thank you for reading.

‘Conscience of a Conservative’ ch. 5-6

Chapter 5, “Freedom for the Farmer,” is mostly self-explanatory, and can be outlined with just two major points. First, “No power over agriculture was given to any branch of the national government.” Of course, this has not prevented Congress and federal agencies from worming around the Constitution, typically with the interstate commerce clause as an excuse. Second, Goldwater points out that government interference, with subsidies for example, has caused more problems than it has solved. For more detail on this, I’ll simply refer the reader to Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson, especially chapters VI (“Credit Diverts Production”) and XVI (“‘Stabilizing’ Commodities”).

Chapter 6, “Freedom for Labor,” is among the best in this book, and his criticism of “big labour” is trenchant and still especially relevant. He does support unions generally, “What could be more fundamental than the freedom to associate with other men, or not to associate, as each man’s conscience and reason dictates?” However, he attacks policies of compulsory membership, and also of unions representing entire industries.

Goldwater’s critique is well-founded. As has often been observed, union monopolies have driven up the price of labour so high that overseas competitors have overtaken American industry, while American corporations have offshored many jobs, contributing to unemployment at home.

Now, though Goldwater is correct in his analysis of unions, his solution – creation or revision of legal statutes – seems inconsistent. He noted in the previous chapter that the national government has no authority to regulate agriculture. I do not see that it has the authority over labour, either. Should this not, then, be a state or even local issue? Surely labour is a perfect example of an issue best dealt with at a local level, by those most directly affected – workers and their families and community. In a labour dispute in, say, Texas or Michigan, Washington, D.C. is so distant it may as well be London.

‘Conscience of a Conservative’ – Ch. 3 and 4

Chapter 3, “State’s Rights,” is a short but important part of the book, and one I wish Goldwater had spent more space developing. I’m thinking of two points in particulat, first, “The Tenth Amendment is not ‘a general assumption,’ but a prohibitory rule of law.” Though I do not find the Constitution in general very complicated, this Amendment is especially straightforward: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The body of the Constitution spells out what poweres are delegated to the US, so it seems clear that any other powers “are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The second point is that “local problems are best dealt with by the people most directly affected.” This should be obvious, as smaller units of organisation are typically more efficient and easier to control than larger entities. The principal objectors to this tend to be proponents of civil rights legislation, which Goldwater addresses in the next chapter, who claim that states sometimes make the wrong decision. This is undoubtedly true, but doesn’t the federal government also make bad decisions? At least under a federalist style of government, if one state makes a mistake the rest may avoid the same problem. Under our increasingly centralised government, we’re all stuck with D.C.’s bad decisions.

Goldwater doesn’t address this in detail, but I appreciate that he distinguishes in this chapter between civil rights and natural rights. Briefly, “natural” or “God-given” rights are those we possess by virtue of being human. God gave them to us, and only God can take them away. “Civil” rights are those given to us by the state, and thus can be taken away by the state. The two can, and in fact ought, to overlap, but should not be confused.

On a final note, this may be a bit tangential but still worth pointing out that some politicians and commentators like to smear libertarians and some conservatives by accusing them of wanting to legalise some vice, say hard drugs or prostitution, when in fact they only support restoring authority to restrict such things to the state and local levels. I recall a couple weeks ago seeing Juan Williams make just such an accusation against (who else?) Dr. Ron Paul. It’s a cheap and easy way to scare social conservatives (or leftists, depending on the exact accusation) away from candidates who may threaten the status quo of absolute federal power over the states.

Stray Thoughts from Fox News

One of my family members likes to watch Fox News most nights (don’t ask me why, I can’t fathom it), and so I occasionally get glimpses of what goes on in the mainstream media. Tonight, I saw Bill O’Reilly speak with John Stossel about legalising medical marijuana, or something like that – most O’Reilly interviews consist of him talking over guests and yammering about this and that, so it’s hard to tell exactly what he wanted to talk about. Mr. Stossel, though, is one of the most one of the only intelligent people on cable news, so I figured I’d watch a few minutes, and decided to share a few stray thoughts about the segment.

First of all, the highlight of the interview came when Mr. O’Reilly referred to marijuana as a gateway drug. Mr. Stossel responded by saying “Milk is a gateway drug,” kids drink milk and later take marijuana. It’s a valid point, but unfortunately Mr. O’Reilly isn’t exactly the brightest crayon in the box, so he just laughed and moved on. In case he decides to read this, though, let me help him out.

Correlation does not equal causation. It may be true that many users of, say, cocaine previously took marijuana, but this does not mean one inevitably leads to the other. To use the above example, most marijuana users probably drank milk as a child, but this does not mean the milk made them more apt to try marijuana.

Now, I don’t know enough about this issue to feel comfortable saying definitely whether marijuana should be outlawed or not. However, I am confident that the federal government does not have the authority to regulate drug use, which leads me to my second observation – neither Mr. O’Reilly nor Mr. Stossel brought up the question of Constitutionality. Perhaps they simply didn’t have time, but this seems to me like a major issue. I don’t see where in the Constitution the federal government is granted such authority. They couldn’t regulate alcohol until the Eighteenth Amendment, so shouldn’t it take another amendment for other drugs?

That’s not to say the states can’t regulate drug use, according to the limits of their own constitutions. In fact, I suspect that most states would adopt similar policies to the federal government’s.

Finally, I’m always struck by how short these segments are. This could’ve been an interesting debate, but there’s simply not enough time to fully address it in the few minutes alotted. I can think of a few reasons why these shows favour short segments, like accounting for most Americans’ short attention spans, or preventing a real discussion from occuring.

To give credit where it’s due on this network, this weekend Mike Huckabee hosted a “presidential forum” on his show, where he invited each Republican presidential candidate to a round-table interview (except Jon Huntsman, who apparently declined). Each candidate received the same amount of time, and enough time (about ten minutes) to make their points with some depth. Some did much better than others, of course, and I can see why Mitt Romney is considered the most likely candidate – he was undoubtedly the smoothest talker, and probably the most charismatic overall. So, Republicans are probably stuck with him, which means that, barring a collapse of the political duopoly, Americans will be stuck with either him or Barack Obama in 2012. In any case, a hat tip to Mr. Huckabee for doing something worthwhile on his show.

‘Conscience of a Conservative’ – Chapter 2

In chapter 2, ‘The Perils of Power’, Goldwater begins to apply the principle laid out in chapter 1 to the government. He begins by quoting Dean Acheson (a Democrat) and a Mr. Larson (a Republican) who make essentially the same claim regarding the fuction of government, that if “no one else can do it” the government should “do what ha[s] to be done.” This attitude, of course, is “the first principle of totalitarianism.” In 1960, as now, we can see that while the two major parties may argue ferociously over details, they generally agree on most issues. They have the same first principle.

Most of this chapter develops Lord Acton’s famous observation about the corrupting influence of power, as well as noting that the blame for undermining the Constitution lies not just in lying politicians but with the people who elect them. He also briefly mentions the critical distinction between a republic and a democracy, which I wish he’d developed further. In brief, a republic is a representative form of government based on the rule of law, while democracy is based on the arbitrary will of the masses. You can find a good summary of this here.

I’ll make one final remark, as most of this chapter is self-explanatory. Goldwater notes, correctly, that “the legitimate functions of government are actually conducive to freedom.” This is true enough for his first few examples, such as “maintaining internal order,” but I’m confused about his last, “removing obstacles to the free interchange of goods.” I can think of no government action that does this, except maybe breaking up monopolies, though maintaining a monopoly would be more difficult in a laissez-faire economy than in a highly regulated one.

‘Conscience of a Conservative’ – Chapter 1

So-called ‘Conservatives’, especially of the talking head variety, have a history of flip-flopping about on issues. One moment they speak gravely about fiscal responsibility, next they feel debts and deficits are acceptable as long as the money is spent on some favoured project (usually national security). The act, usually put on by Republican cheerleaders and neoconservatives (e.g., Sean Hannity or Rick Perry), shouldn’t take much power of peception to see through, yet many voters continue to be taken in. Why?

I suspect that it’s partly a failure to define terms and first principles, and Barry Goldwater spends the first chapter of Conscience of a Conservative addressing just that issue. He claims, “The root difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals of today is that Conservatives take account of the whole man,” that man has both a material (or economic) side, and also a spiritual side, with the latter being superior. He follows with a series of critical observations for understanding Conservative philosophy. Namely, that every man is unique, that his economic and spiritual natures are “inextricable, intertwined,” and that a man’s development in both cannot be “directed by outside forces.”

With this in mind, “the Conservative looks upon politics as the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenace of public order.” Though a bit vague, Goldwater expands on the idea in later chapters. For now, we can take this as a basis to judge the ersatz Conservatives among Republicans and the mainstream media and the policies they support. For example, does the TSA maximise freedom? What about American military adventures? Social Security? The Department of Education? Permitting only 1.6 gallons per toilet flush? When evaluating politicians and commentators who call themselves “Conservative,” take a look at what policies they support and ask Goldwater’s question. Their credentials should become clear fairly quickly.

Now, while we’re defining terms, I do wonder how Goldwater would, on this basis, distinguish between Conservatives and libertarians. I don’t know if he ever addressed this distinction himself, so I can only speculate. Obviously, allowing a governmental role in at least maintaining public order separates him from the anarchist variety of libertarians. As for the minarchists, I suppose the main difference would be the reasoning behind the policies. Goldwater advocates liberty because it is consistent with man’s spiritual nature. Libertarianism is ultimately an offshoot of Classical Liberalism, and like most Liberals tend to advocate their policies on  utilitarian, that is, materialistic, grounds.

One interesting question that arises out of this definition is how we should treat legislation dealing with vices – drugs, gambling, prostitution, and the like. Based on what Goldwater says later on, in the chapter on States’ Rights, I feel confident saying that he’d leave this as an issue for state and local governments to deal with. Should even these lower levels of government regulate them? Though examples of license, I don’t think any Conservative would see them as examples of liberty. If Conservatives consider the “whole man” in legislating, and most Conservatives would agree that “he who sins is a slave to sin,” then surely restrictions on such things would be conducive to liberty. It’s an interesting question, but for now I’ll leave a fuller examination to another post.

‘Conscience of a Conservative’ – Foreword

To keep current political problems in perspective and know how to respond to them, “The wise man will sek out the wisdom of all the ancients[...] He will keep the sayings of renowned men” (Sir. 39:1, 2). With that in mind, I’ve decided to begin a series of posts going though books I find particularly helpful to understanding the present.

I’ll get to “ancient” books eventually, but will begin with something relatively recent, Barry Goldwater’s The Conscience of a Conservative. I’ll go through a chapter or two at a time, highlighting and commenting on ideas especially pertinant to our present situation. Please note that I won’t cover everything Goldwater discusses, so do read the book. Also, part of my goal with this series is to address the present by reference to the perennial, and establish some first principals, so to speak, for a Conservative or Traditionalist approach to politics. I’m beginning with Goldwater because his work is recent enough that most of what he discusses in Conscience is still relevant, but at fifty years old  he is old enough that one can examine his work and more easily assess his ideas without the noise of current events.

Beginning with his Foreword, Goldwater says, “This book is not written with the idea of adding to or improving on the Conservative philosophy. Or of ‘bringing it up to date.’ The ancient and tested truths that guided our Republic through its early days will do equally well for us.” He is quite right on this, and also right in the observation that Conservative principles were largely ignored in D.C. – I’ll add that now, in 2011, they still are.

However, he then claims that the United States are “fundamentally a Conservative nation,” and that the primary reason the attitudes of the people have not translated into government action is Conservatives’ failure “to demonstrate the practical relevance of Conservative principles to the needs of the day.” Maybe that was true in 1960. I don’t know. I don’t think it’s true today, though the States are so fragmented by distance and multiculturalism that one can’t generalise too much, and Conservatism certainly does reign in some parts of the country. Even taken as a whole, the US probably is more Conservative than most government officials. Generally, though, I do believe that Liberalism and its offshoots (which includes neoconservatism) rule the day.

So much for the introduction. Next week, we’ll begin the book proper, including a definition of Conservatism and the proper limits of government.

Imperial War Museum

This post will be a bit more personal than most.

A couple weeks ago, I took a weeklong holiday to London, and during the trip I visited the Imperial War Museum, which covers British wars of the last century. I felt like a little boy, excited about the tanks, planes, guns, and other fun stuff on display. After my initial excitement, though, my reaction struck me as a bit odd. Remember, I’m consistently anti-war. I can count on one finger the number of American wars that I’m certain satisfy the provisions of just war doctrine, and I doubt that the British wars covered by the museum would fare much better. I love war literature, and most of that takes an anti-war approach, as well (“Dulce et Decorum Est,” H.S. Mauberley, The Things They Carried). I’m even repulsed by most of the American “heroes” associated with war, usually because of that assosiation (Lincoln, Sherman, Truman).

Doubtless, a large part of my fascination stems from the joy most boys have for machinery. After all, I also liked the London Transport Museum, where I felt it necessary to climb into every rail-car and bus I could. I suppose one could also point to boys’ innate love of contest and heroism, whether in small affairs like sports or greater things like a world war. Besides, it’s hard not to be moved by tales of legitimate heroism. The museum included the Lord Ashford Gallery, which collects Victoria Crosses and relates the occasion for each award on display. Far be it from me to deny the courage of the men who earned those VCs, even after shaking off the delusion that any war of the last century was fought to defend our freedom. “These men are worth / Your tears. You are not worth their merriment.” – Wilfred Owen

Opting Out of “No Child Let Behind”

According to today’s Dallas Morning News, President Barack Obama has decided to allow states to opt out of the No Child Left Behind law, provided they “meet conditions such as imposing their own standards to prepare students for college and careers and setting evaluation standards for teachers and principals.” I don’t know whether he has the authority to do that without Congress, but then again I doubt Congress has the authority to regulate education in the first place.

Setting that aside, good for Mr. Obama allowing at least a hint of decentralisation. Maybe this will be the first step on a journey of 1,000 miles to repeal all of No Child Left Behind, then abolish the Dept. of Education, then abolish state boards of education, and leave education at the level it belongs – the family (and, perhaps, local communities).

Hey, I can dream.

I also like how education is all about preparing students for college, as though everyone needs to go for college, and careers, as though that were the only end of education.

Actually, what is the end of education? What does Mr. Obama mean when he talks about education? I’d assume utilitarianism, but it’s never really defined by him or anyone else for that matter. What should a student be able to do after graduation? What should he know, and why should he know it? Does everyone need to know the same things, or be taught the same way? If we’re going to take education seriously, defining the term should be the first step.

Unfortunately, I have little evidence that the political class takes education seriously, and we’re all left to suffer for it.