Shift in Defense of the Middle Ground
What Has Changed?
When I began this exercise I was honestly trying to find a middle position between the
extremes of Conservatism and Liberalism, as liberalism is practiced today. I still reject the
extremes. But, it seems to me supposed moderation, as it is being practiced by the
administration elected in 2009 - has moved so far to the left that a new defense is called for.
That defense is to bring the middle back to a realistic balance between individualism and
liberalism as it was originally conceived and pursued. To put it bluntly, we need to resist
going so far to the left that we approach Socialism. This administration is not socialist in
terms of the classic definition, ownership of the means of production by the state. Instead
we should call it STATISM, or uncontrolled growth of central government, and control of the
means of production (and much else) by that central government. In historical terms that
can be translated as central planning.
The standard distribution has been so quickly and so completely skewed that middle
ground is suddenly no longer anywhere near what I have always viewed as the middle.
Admittedly much of what has already been built into this website remains applicable, in
terms of my arguments, since central governments, over a long period of time have proven
incapable of managing a complex economy, much less its integration into a world economy.
Middle ground used to be the search for balance between the good for the many and the
good of the individual, accepting regulation by government through law, but not direct control
through coercion. Central planning by the government is not middle ground. Middle ground
in American parlance is based on the Constitution, separation of powers, rule of law,
federalism and rights of individuals, including property rights. Take this away and there is
no longer a middle to find without changing the culture completely.
There are several reasons why central planning doesn't work. First, what has to be
planned is too big for the committee that is government to handle. Second, politicians'
priorities and the priorities of a nation are seldom congruent. Third, politicians are neither
trained nor capable of the task. Finally human nature; that is, greed, envy, power, emotion,
moral weakness and ignorance; make it impossible since instead of being controlled by
competing self-interest, it leaves it to the selfish whims of political favoritism. On top of that
it is becoming increasingly apparent that, as our founders were concerned it would, our
leadership is not up to it, partly due to the human nature problems above, and partly
because our American Idol approach to selecting leaders is totally inadequate to the task.
I shall list here many of the same links I have listed elsewhere because they are what led
me to this position, and they continue to apply. But I needed a new page - a blank canvas
on which to project. I continue to be for middle ground, but balanced middle ground,
balanced between public (government) and private (individual) interests and needs. It is my
growing opinion that we are rapidly losing that balance, and will suffer for it. But that needs
to be explored; why? And why not?
When I began this exercise I was honestly trying to find a middle position between the
extremes of Conservatism and Liberalism, as liberalism is practiced today. I still reject the
extremes. But, it seems to me supposed moderation, as it is being practiced by the
administration elected in 2009 - has moved so far to the left that a new defense is called for.
That defense is to bring the middle back to a realistic balance between individualism and
liberalism as it was originally conceived and pursued. To put it bluntly, we need to resist
going so far to the left that we approach Socialism. This administration is not socialist in
terms of the classic definition, ownership of the means of production by the state. Instead
we should call it STATISM, or uncontrolled growth of central government, and control of the
means of production (and much else) by that central government. In historical terms that
can be translated as central planning.
The standard distribution has been so quickly and so completely skewed that middle
ground is suddenly no longer anywhere near what I have always viewed as the middle.
Admittedly much of what has already been built into this website remains applicable, in
terms of my arguments, since central governments, over a long period of time have proven
incapable of managing a complex economy, much less its integration into a world economy.
Middle ground used to be the search for balance between the good for the many and the
good of the individual, accepting regulation by government through law, but not direct control
through coercion. Central planning by the government is not middle ground. Middle ground
in American parlance is based on the Constitution, separation of powers, rule of law,
federalism and rights of individuals, including property rights. Take this away and there is
no longer a middle to find without changing the culture completely.
There are several reasons why central planning doesn't work. First, what has to be
planned is too big for the committee that is government to handle. Second, politicians'
priorities and the priorities of a nation are seldom congruent. Third, politicians are neither
trained nor capable of the task. Finally human nature; that is, greed, envy, power, emotion,
moral weakness and ignorance; make it impossible since instead of being controlled by
competing self-interest, it leaves it to the selfish whims of political favoritism. On top of that
it is becoming increasingly apparent that, as our founders were concerned it would, our
leadership is not up to it, partly due to the human nature problems above, and partly
because our American Idol approach to selecting leaders is totally inadequate to the task.
I shall list here many of the same links I have listed elsewhere because they are what led
me to this position, and they continue to apply. But I needed a new page - a blank canvas
on which to project. I continue to be for middle ground, but balanced middle ground,
balanced between public (government) and private (individual) interests and needs. It is my
growing opinion that we are rapidly losing that balance, and will suffer for it. But that needs
to be explored; why? And why not?
Why has it changed?
My changes in thinking always come from experience
and much of that experience is that of others whose views I
have consumed. One thing that stands out from that to
which I have been exposed is constant reminder of the
inequality of human abilities and outlooks; another is the
unruliness of the human spirit and its susceptibility to
influence, particularly charismatic propaganda. Historically
this has so often led to mob chaos.
That particularly begs an explanation of the difference
between revolution and criminality; a difference that is far
less clear to me than I once had imagined. Having accepted
the reality of nation states I also accepted the need for
control within them, established by laws. But a growing
portion of the world seems to be questioning nation states
and their authority based on cultural definition. What should
be the basis of our boundaries among nations?
On the other hand, regardless of how the boundaries
are established, how should leadership within them be
defined, developed and defended? Even in the grand
American experiment there was worry about majority rule,
and with a growing chasm between haves and have nots
(within and outside those boundaries) the have nots will
always outnumber the haves.
Because of that, and because of differences in
motivation, there will always be a measure of envy among
the have nots (among all actually) and that's where my view
of middle ground was developed. How do we define
"sharing the wealth"? How do we define rights of those who
create in contrast to those who toil for those who create?
Obviously the best solution is working together, but we have
never effectively found a way to ensure that. Some will
exploit when they can, some will shirk when they can, some
will feed on the efforts of others. We make laws, but they are
both disobeyed and circumvented, so we make more laws.
But the laws are made by men, and men are by nature
self-serving. So we make constitutions to circumscribe the
laws and define limits to how they are made; but
constitutions can be changed - if the majority is great
enough to do it. Then what?
Balancing rights is not a simple task. Even agreeing
where the balance point should be is not a simple task. The
United States seems to be embarking upon a new effort to
redefine, and in the process move the midpoint toward the
majority, and in the process (in my opinion) impacting the
potential that has been offered by a free market economy.
What will that entail? How will it be achieved? And what will
be the results?
What will it do to the balance that needs to be the
middle ground?
My changes in thinking always come from experience
and much of that experience is that of others whose views I
have consumed. One thing that stands out from that to
which I have been exposed is constant reminder of the
inequality of human abilities and outlooks; another is the
unruliness of the human spirit and its susceptibility to
influence, particularly charismatic propaganda. Historically
this has so often led to mob chaos.
That particularly begs an explanation of the difference
between revolution and criminality; a difference that is far
less clear to me than I once had imagined. Having accepted
the reality of nation states I also accepted the need for
control within them, established by laws. But a growing
portion of the world seems to be questioning nation states
and their authority based on cultural definition. What should
be the basis of our boundaries among nations?
On the other hand, regardless of how the boundaries
are established, how should leadership within them be
defined, developed and defended? Even in the grand
American experiment there was worry about majority rule,
and with a growing chasm between haves and have nots
(within and outside those boundaries) the have nots will
always outnumber the haves.
Because of that, and because of differences in
motivation, there will always be a measure of envy among
the have nots (among all actually) and that's where my view
of middle ground was developed. How do we define
"sharing the wealth"? How do we define rights of those who
create in contrast to those who toil for those who create?
Obviously the best solution is working together, but we have
never effectively found a way to ensure that. Some will
exploit when they can, some will shirk when they can, some
will feed on the efforts of others. We make laws, but they are
both disobeyed and circumvented, so we make more laws.
But the laws are made by men, and men are by nature
self-serving. So we make constitutions to circumscribe the
laws and define limits to how they are made; but
constitutions can be changed - if the majority is great
enough to do it. Then what?
Balancing rights is not a simple task. Even agreeing
where the balance point should be is not a simple task. The
United States seems to be embarking upon a new effort to
redefine, and in the process move the midpoint toward the
majority, and in the process (in my opinion) impacting the
potential that has been offered by a free market economy.
What will that entail? How will it be achieved? And what will
be the results?
What will it do to the balance that needs to be the
middle ground?
This is an example of thought
processing. I am not sure
where it will lead, but a new
piece of my process has begun
- yet another tangent. It will
continue as I challenge my
beliefs. I shall struggle to keep
an open mind.
processing. I am not sure
where it will lead, but a new
piece of my process has begun
- yet another tangent. It will
continue as I challenge my
beliefs. I shall struggle to keep
an open mind.
My Growing Concerns
First let me say I am quite aware of the sensationalism of both
ends of the political/media spectrum - and the conspiratorial innuendo
that accompanies quite a bit of it; I try to filter that out to the extent I can. I
also try to keep in mind the brandishing of numbers: large numbers get
attention, but can be misleading, when the fact of a $14,000,000,000 for
example is not taken into relative consideration. But today's numbers
are concerning even with that consideration. The deficits of Medicare
and Social Security have been a legitimate concern, long before the
current more aggressive spending came to the fore. But as many tried
to point out, they weren't the end of the world in and of themselves,
though they could have led in that direction; they did, however, require
intelligent - and cooperative - attention. In short, they required that
something be done to reconcile them to reality, requiring thoughtful and
responsible cooperation among the political factions, something that
has proven difficult to realize.
The addition aggressive spending recently launched exacerbates
the challenge. Scott Burns, who is not known as a sensationalist,
summed it up in a recent article, citing government statistics:
worrisome. I thought so before the recent incredible lurch toward
increased social spending, but instead of pulling together and doing
something about it we have sprinted in the other direction toward
becoming, as Burns puts it, and upside down nation. Of course much
can happen in this chaotic world, and will, but, again as Burns points
out, there is almost inevitably inflation in our future. How much depends
on actions we take now, and so far it has not been comforting to watch. I
worry about this, even as I understand, as I have said elsewhere, that I
realize there is no turning back on Social Security and Medicare, but not
necessarily as it is currently being administered.
In another article (Parade magazine Intelligence Report) it was
pointed out that "about 50% of people now live in cities, and 80% of the
world's wealth is going to be concentrated in cities by 2030." Add to that
that almost half of Americans do not currently pay income taxes, and it is
obvious that a large number of people are becoming less and less able
to get by without assistance. Change is coming, but instead of
preparing to deal with it we seem to be pursuing power politics as
usual. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. It need not be
catastrophic, and it probably won't be, as we adjust as we will have to
adjust; painful, yes, catastrophic hopefully not. But the lack of realistic
attention to middle ground realism can not be other than concerning.
I have yet another concern, and this is historical: when things get
rough people throughout the world have tended not to take it sitting
down. So what happens when things start getting really painful? One
approach, frequently seen, is that the elected administration will be
replaced by one which promises different action. Of course promises
have been a common fare in democratic politics and the lack of veracity
almost as common; who can we trust? No matter, the solutions will be
difficult, and as bipartisan cooperation has been difficult to achieve,
required actions will at best be difficult - and painful.
But there is another possible approach that has also been seen
frequently in the past: violence. Violence; when the emotional mob gets
out of hand, and violence ensues, the response is always an attempt to
restore order. It has happened often enough, and ultimately order has
always been restored; but swings of the pendulum are seldom perfectly
damped and we have seen many instances where pursuance of "order"
- control - gets as out of hand as the chaos of anarchy. And in the
world's recent history this is how what began as social populism has
become dictatorship; Jonah Goldberg describes it as liberal fascism.
Could it happen to us?
Only if things really got bad enough and there were significant
changes to the way our republican, federalist, checked and balanced
Constitutional government functions, something that has been
suggested might be part of the "change" the current administration
favors. I know, this sounds like right wing radical doom saying, and I
hope it is, but, I would suggest, it cannot be discounted; the stakes are
too high and with a desperate urban population it certainly cannot be
ruled as beyond possibility.
In the meantime my concern grows that the populist swing to what
appears to me to be fiscal irresponsibility for the goal of what is believed
to be social responsibility could prepare the ground for a similar radical
demagoguery as has developed elsewhere - and is developing
elsewhere in the world today. I have written elsewhere that I see, and
am beginning to accept, that a swing toward a more patriarchal style of
democracy is perhaps inevitable, but where is the line between more
patriarchal government and fascism, and how is it drawn and
defended? Could this be the new middle ground defense?
Perhaps it all depends on our leadership - elite leadership as it is
and always must be, since leadership has important requirements - as
well as egocentric dangers. Our decisions with respect to who leads us
is more critical than it has ever been, yet there is no indication we
appreciate that, or understand the qualifications that they demand.
Thus my growing concerns.
First let me say I am quite aware of the sensationalism of both
ends of the political/media spectrum - and the conspiratorial innuendo
that accompanies quite a bit of it; I try to filter that out to the extent I can. I
also try to keep in mind the brandishing of numbers: large numbers get
attention, but can be misleading, when the fact of a $14,000,000,000 for
example is not taken into relative consideration. But today's numbers
are concerning even with that consideration. The deficits of Medicare
and Social Security have been a legitimate concern, long before the
current more aggressive spending came to the fore. But as many tried
to point out, they weren't the end of the world in and of themselves,
though they could have led in that direction; they did, however, require
intelligent - and cooperative - attention. In short, they required that
something be done to reconcile them to reality, requiring thoughtful and
responsible cooperation among the political factions, something that
has proven difficult to realize.
The addition aggressive spending recently launched exacerbates
the challenge. Scott Burns, who is not known as a sensationalist,
summed it up in a recent article, citing government statistics:
- "According to the Federal Reserve flow of funds figures for
year-end 2007, our collective net worth as consumers
was $62.7 trillion. By the end of 2008, the figure had
fallen to $51.5 trillion. Another year of growth for Social
Security and Medicare liabilities would bring total
unfunded government promises to $46 trillion. That's
nearly 90% of our net worth. If consumer net worth fell
another $5 trillion - the same amount it fell in the last
three months of 2008 - we'd be broke."
worrisome. I thought so before the recent incredible lurch toward
increased social spending, but instead of pulling together and doing
something about it we have sprinted in the other direction toward
becoming, as Burns puts it, and upside down nation. Of course much
can happen in this chaotic world, and will, but, again as Burns points
out, there is almost inevitably inflation in our future. How much depends
on actions we take now, and so far it has not been comforting to watch. I
worry about this, even as I understand, as I have said elsewhere, that I
realize there is no turning back on Social Security and Medicare, but not
necessarily as it is currently being administered.
In another article (Parade magazine Intelligence Report) it was
pointed out that "about 50% of people now live in cities, and 80% of the
world's wealth is going to be concentrated in cities by 2030." Add to that
that almost half of Americans do not currently pay income taxes, and it is
obvious that a large number of people are becoming less and less able
to get by without assistance. Change is coming, but instead of
preparing to deal with it we seem to be pursuing power politics as
usual. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. It need not be
catastrophic, and it probably won't be, as we adjust as we will have to
adjust; painful, yes, catastrophic hopefully not. But the lack of realistic
attention to middle ground realism can not be other than concerning.
I have yet another concern, and this is historical: when things get
rough people throughout the world have tended not to take it sitting
down. So what happens when things start getting really painful? One
approach, frequently seen, is that the elected administration will be
replaced by one which promises different action. Of course promises
have been a common fare in democratic politics and the lack of veracity
almost as common; who can we trust? No matter, the solutions will be
difficult, and as bipartisan cooperation has been difficult to achieve,
required actions will at best be difficult - and painful.
But there is another possible approach that has also been seen
frequently in the past: violence. Violence; when the emotional mob gets
out of hand, and violence ensues, the response is always an attempt to
restore order. It has happened often enough, and ultimately order has
always been restored; but swings of the pendulum are seldom perfectly
damped and we have seen many instances where pursuance of "order"
- control - gets as out of hand as the chaos of anarchy. And in the
world's recent history this is how what began as social populism has
become dictatorship; Jonah Goldberg describes it as liberal fascism.
Could it happen to us?
Only if things really got bad enough and there were significant
changes to the way our republican, federalist, checked and balanced
Constitutional government functions, something that has been
suggested might be part of the "change" the current administration
favors. I know, this sounds like right wing radical doom saying, and I
hope it is, but, I would suggest, it cannot be discounted; the stakes are
too high and with a desperate urban population it certainly cannot be
ruled as beyond possibility.
In the meantime my concern grows that the populist swing to what
appears to me to be fiscal irresponsibility for the goal of what is believed
to be social responsibility could prepare the ground for a similar radical
demagoguery as has developed elsewhere - and is developing
elsewhere in the world today. I have written elsewhere that I see, and
am beginning to accept, that a swing toward a more patriarchal style of
democracy is perhaps inevitable, but where is the line between more
patriarchal government and fascism, and how is it drawn and
defended? Could this be the new middle ground defense?
Perhaps it all depends on our leadership - elite leadership as it is
and always must be, since leadership has important requirements - as
well as egocentric dangers. Our decisions with respect to who leads us
is more critical than it has ever been, yet there is no indication we
appreciate that, or understand the qualifications that they demand.
Thus my growing concerns.
| All roads must lead to fiscal responsibility. When we cannot afford what we spend - for whatever noble purposes, we are doomed to disappointment, or worse. Noble purposes, after all are subjective; the consequences of excessive overspending are not. |
Recapitualtion (May 2009)
So where am I going with this; or more appropriately, to where have I come? I don't pretend it's a final destination as I
suspect that it will continue to develop. But for now, having splashed around in my sandbox, what am I thinking?
1. Thinking about Dr. Huntington's and Mr. Kaplan's views on the future, I have to go along with both: I do believe we are
stressing the fault lines among cultures, but at the same time I cannot not lean toward the anarchic comments Kaplan has
put forth within that basic argument. In an earlier (much earlier) essay I likened it to tribalism and suggested that even
within the culture that is American (and in my book I belabored the point that there is an American culture, although I see it
weakening) it is occurring, not only in terms of traditional cultural differences, but also in terms of the fabricated cultures that
is what America seems to be becoming - friends, You-Tube, My Space, etc., among many others But are these so
different? Cultural fault lines don't have to mean global explosion; perhaps Kaplan's cultural disintegration is more likely.
In America we worship it as diversity; will it be our downfall? George Friedman sees some of it already in process in
Europe and Russia, and sees it looming in the future in the United States vis a vis Mexico. Yet Friedman discounts the
Islamic threat. Why? Because of what Gilles Kepel suggests: Islamicism is not about religion (culture, or even tribe) but
about power. In many ways maybe the cultures of today, traditional or fabricated, are just about power, or at least filling a
power void.
2. Actually, power and contention is what defines man. The Arabs are particularly adept at it, but have no corner on the
market. Put someone in power and you will have instant opposition. Power must deal with opposition, they will clash, and
power will change, because as power corrupts it also erodes. On the other hand when power disintegrates and anarchy
develops, the void will soon be filled by whatever is in a position to exercise it. This is part of the Titler theory of empire
erosion. What seems to be changing, suddenly, is both definition and employment of power - to be grasped forcefully
domestically and shared amicably internationally. I am nervous with both.
3. Erosion is happening in the United States as it does with all "empires". When there is too much it both corrupts and
erodes. Among other things "too much" entails too much temptation. But that is not confined to the United States. As long
as there is something to temp there will be those who will pursue it, legally or otherwise. Some live for accumulation of
power, but some live to take it from those that have it, including, of course, criminals; and those come in many different
forms. A new ambiguity in terms of laws, law enforcement and use of power seems to be developing; what shape will it
take? And what effect will this have on free markets? What effect will government intrusion into free markets and the
means of ownership and production have?
4. Drugs are an example of corruption and erosion - both internally and externally. Internally the concern is with almost
universal acceptance, albeit with legal rejection. Can this continue? Drug Cartels, as were the Mafia of years past, seem to
embody internal and external - for the same reason: make it illegal and if there is demand there will be a market. That
market will be that much more lucrative because it is illegal, and risky. And the people who work it will be more powerful
because they have the money that risk produces, and they will be ruthless enough not to give a damn who gets hurt. What
doesn't kill them will make them stronger. Besides, they don't have the laws to worry about, ambiguous or not. The future
direction to be taken in this area is murky at best, middle ground being impossible to identify.
5. The growing crisis in the United States has been driven by excess, creating much too much expectation while creating
the material loot that makes it realizable. Since much of power is associated with money and life style, the excess has had
a very strong effect, and partly because of that, the power is not trivial. On the other hand the push for diversity has made
power very complicated - and encouraged sub-cultural concentrations that, obviously are going to be in conflict; there is that
much more to fight over and disagree with, or has been until very recently; it is not clear where this is going. The
combination of excess, expectation and permissiveness has resulted in as much complacency as expectation, which has
emphasized the egalitarianism we have always espoused, resulting in too many cases in lack of initiative, as part of the
expectation. Egalitarianism and expectation have also led to dumbing down almost everything. Yet were are now being
faced with "spreading the wealth" through increasing taxes and restrictions on incentive, while expanding expectations
breathlessly. How this is to be accomplished? The effect it will have on our future is a matter of serious concern.
6. On top of all this, the excess has also led to an extreme desire to be entertained, and entertainment and pursuit of it
have begun to seriously affect cultural outlook. This is not changing - in fact it would seem the presidency is becoming an
integral part of it, being incorporated into it with staggering support from biased media. Will that lead to an increased cult of
individual power? And will this be supported, and even abetted by a party in power that seems to espouse replacement of
Constitutional law by law dispensed by empathic judges?
7. I should mention lawyers too, as well as judges - tort lawyers in particular - who, although they might have served a
purpose, have gotten way out of hand - mostly due to excess, expectation and opportunity. Part of rising costs can be
attributed to defense against lawyers; yet they are part of the constituency of the party in power, as are empathetic lawyers,
deliberately tilted toward to labor unions and non-management workers who represent only themselves as opposed to a
complicated hierarchy of stake holders. What will this do to sanctity of property, and propensity to invest?
8. This brings us back - or up to - the concerns I want to explore on this page of the website: a threat to change our
culture away from the strengths that have served us so well a change in direction that has been in process for at least 100
years, was inevitable, probably even positive to some degree; but is suddenly erratically accelerating. That is startling. The
pendulum has been swinging upward to the left; so, how far will it continue to swing? And to what effect? And when will
direction of the swing begin to change back to the other direction? To what effect? Will it even be able to swing back -
enough? And if it doesn't what then?
9. Finally I must ask myself how much of this is traditional resistance to change. Then, I have said in Middle Ground
discussion that I accept the need for change as inevitable and necessary; I think my question is, how much, how fast, and
how managed? The left seems to support it blindly; the right opposes it out of hand. This defined the Middle Ground with
which i was originally concerned. But it has shifted from discussing a need for controlled and intelligent compromise to
stopping what seems to be an out of control steam roller that is attempting to obliterate principles I have always believed,
and still believe, are crucial to our very way of life, and its success. I suppose there are actually two aspects of my concern
and I accept that I am blurring them; one is loss of moral purpose, the other is Statism. I think they are blurring because I
see Statism being built upon the foundation of the already in motion loss of moral purpose, for the wrong reasons. I seem
unable to get away from the belief that all roads must lead to fiscal responsibility. When we cannot afford what we spend -
for whatever noble purposes, we are doomed to disappointment, or worse. Noble purposes, after all are relative; the
consequences of excessive overspending are not. I think we are moving away from that principle, and I am having difficulty
accepting that it constitutes advisable Middle Ground practice.
So where am I going with this; or more appropriately, to where have I come? I don't pretend it's a final destination as I
suspect that it will continue to develop. But for now, having splashed around in my sandbox, what am I thinking?
1. Thinking about Dr. Huntington's and Mr. Kaplan's views on the future, I have to go along with both: I do believe we are
stressing the fault lines among cultures, but at the same time I cannot not lean toward the anarchic comments Kaplan has
put forth within that basic argument. In an earlier (much earlier) essay I likened it to tribalism and suggested that even
within the culture that is American (and in my book I belabored the point that there is an American culture, although I see it
weakening) it is occurring, not only in terms of traditional cultural differences, but also in terms of the fabricated cultures that
is what America seems to be becoming - friends, You-Tube, My Space, etc., among many others But are these so
different? Cultural fault lines don't have to mean global explosion; perhaps Kaplan's cultural disintegration is more likely.
In America we worship it as diversity; will it be our downfall? George Friedman sees some of it already in process in
Europe and Russia, and sees it looming in the future in the United States vis a vis Mexico. Yet Friedman discounts the
Islamic threat. Why? Because of what Gilles Kepel suggests: Islamicism is not about religion (culture, or even tribe) but
about power. In many ways maybe the cultures of today, traditional or fabricated, are just about power, or at least filling a
power void.
2. Actually, power and contention is what defines man. The Arabs are particularly adept at it, but have no corner on the
market. Put someone in power and you will have instant opposition. Power must deal with opposition, they will clash, and
power will change, because as power corrupts it also erodes. On the other hand when power disintegrates and anarchy
develops, the void will soon be filled by whatever is in a position to exercise it. This is part of the Titler theory of empire
erosion. What seems to be changing, suddenly, is both definition and employment of power - to be grasped forcefully
domestically and shared amicably internationally. I am nervous with both.
3. Erosion is happening in the United States as it does with all "empires". When there is too much it both corrupts and
erodes. Among other things "too much" entails too much temptation. But that is not confined to the United States. As long
as there is something to temp there will be those who will pursue it, legally or otherwise. Some live for accumulation of
power, but some live to take it from those that have it, including, of course, criminals; and those come in many different
forms. A new ambiguity in terms of laws, law enforcement and use of power seems to be developing; what shape will it
take? And what effect will this have on free markets? What effect will government intrusion into free markets and the
means of ownership and production have?
4. Drugs are an example of corruption and erosion - both internally and externally. Internally the concern is with almost
universal acceptance, albeit with legal rejection. Can this continue? Drug Cartels, as were the Mafia of years past, seem to
embody internal and external - for the same reason: make it illegal and if there is demand there will be a market. That
market will be that much more lucrative because it is illegal, and risky. And the people who work it will be more powerful
because they have the money that risk produces, and they will be ruthless enough not to give a damn who gets hurt. What
doesn't kill them will make them stronger. Besides, they don't have the laws to worry about, ambiguous or not. The future
direction to be taken in this area is murky at best, middle ground being impossible to identify.
5. The growing crisis in the United States has been driven by excess, creating much too much expectation while creating
the material loot that makes it realizable. Since much of power is associated with money and life style, the excess has had
a very strong effect, and partly because of that, the power is not trivial. On the other hand the push for diversity has made
power very complicated - and encouraged sub-cultural concentrations that, obviously are going to be in conflict; there is that
much more to fight over and disagree with, or has been until very recently; it is not clear where this is going. The
combination of excess, expectation and permissiveness has resulted in as much complacency as expectation, which has
emphasized the egalitarianism we have always espoused, resulting in too many cases in lack of initiative, as part of the
expectation. Egalitarianism and expectation have also led to dumbing down almost everything. Yet were are now being
faced with "spreading the wealth" through increasing taxes and restrictions on incentive, while expanding expectations
breathlessly. How this is to be accomplished? The effect it will have on our future is a matter of serious concern.
6. On top of all this, the excess has also led to an extreme desire to be entertained, and entertainment and pursuit of it
have begun to seriously affect cultural outlook. This is not changing - in fact it would seem the presidency is becoming an
integral part of it, being incorporated into it with staggering support from biased media. Will that lead to an increased cult of
individual power? And will this be supported, and even abetted by a party in power that seems to espouse replacement of
Constitutional law by law dispensed by empathic judges?
7. I should mention lawyers too, as well as judges - tort lawyers in particular - who, although they might have served a
purpose, have gotten way out of hand - mostly due to excess, expectation and opportunity. Part of rising costs can be
attributed to defense against lawyers; yet they are part of the constituency of the party in power, as are empathetic lawyers,
deliberately tilted toward to labor unions and non-management workers who represent only themselves as opposed to a
complicated hierarchy of stake holders. What will this do to sanctity of property, and propensity to invest?
8. This brings us back - or up to - the concerns I want to explore on this page of the website: a threat to change our
culture away from the strengths that have served us so well a change in direction that has been in process for at least 100
years, was inevitable, probably even positive to some degree; but is suddenly erratically accelerating. That is startling. The
pendulum has been swinging upward to the left; so, how far will it continue to swing? And to what effect? And when will
direction of the swing begin to change back to the other direction? To what effect? Will it even be able to swing back -
enough? And if it doesn't what then?
9. Finally I must ask myself how much of this is traditional resistance to change. Then, I have said in Middle Ground
discussion that I accept the need for change as inevitable and necessary; I think my question is, how much, how fast, and
how managed? The left seems to support it blindly; the right opposes it out of hand. This defined the Middle Ground with
which i was originally concerned. But it has shifted from discussing a need for controlled and intelligent compromise to
stopping what seems to be an out of control steam roller that is attempting to obliterate principles I have always believed,
and still believe, are crucial to our very way of life, and its success. I suppose there are actually two aspects of my concern
and I accept that I am blurring them; one is loss of moral purpose, the other is Statism. I think they are blurring because I
see Statism being built upon the foundation of the already in motion loss of moral purpose, for the wrong reasons. I seem
unable to get away from the belief that all roads must lead to fiscal responsibility. When we cannot afford what we spend -
for whatever noble purposes, we are doomed to disappointment, or worse. Noble purposes, after all are relative; the
consequences of excessive overspending are not. I think we are moving away from that principle, and I am having difficulty
accepting that it constitutes advisable Middle Ground practice.
"An optimist thinks this is the best of all
possible worlds - A pessimist knows it."
J. Robert Oppenheimer
I think I am looking back at optimism and
forward to pessimism.
possible worlds - A pessimist knows it."
J. Robert Oppenheimer
I think I am looking back at optimism and
forward to pessimism.
"The power of accurate observation is
commonly called cynicism by those who
have not got it."
George Bernard Shaw
Yup, that's just about right.
commonly called cynicism by those who
have not got it."
George Bernard Shaw
Yup, that's just about right.
"Neglect of discipline is a greater evil than
neglect of culture, for this last can be
remedied later in life."
Emanuel Kant
The operational word is CAN, but that
requires discipline.
neglect of culture, for this last can be
remedied later in life."
Emanuel Kant
The operational word is CAN, but that
requires discipline.
Change, but how and to
what effect?
Basic economic
principles that have proven
successful in the long run,
versus social objectives
that by and large have
failed every time they have
been tried.
What has changed?
what effect?
Basic economic
principles that have proven
successful in the long run,
versus social objectives
that by and large have
failed every time they have
been tried.
What has changed?
Summarizing the Summary
1. Our approach to the world and foreign policy appears to be naive
and infantile, with little indication of understanding of self interested
geopolitics, historical reality or potential for catastrophe.
2. Our economic policy is beyond scary.
3. The drift toward statist government growth and control is both
unrealistic and unworkable.
4. The ignorance - in terms of what national leadership requires - is
incomprehensible.
5. I think we are moving into fantasy land with neither clue that it's
fantasy or concern for the consequences.
1. Our approach to the world and foreign policy appears to be naive
and infantile, with little indication of understanding of self interested
geopolitics, historical reality or potential for catastrophe.
2. Our economic policy is beyond scary.
3. The drift toward statist government growth and control is both
unrealistic and unworkable.
4. The ignorance - in terms of what national leadership requires - is
incomprehensible.
5. I think we are moving into fantasy land with neither clue that it's
fantasy or concern for the consequences.
"Live free or die" General John Stark - Motto
of the state of New Hampshire.
of the state of New Hampshire.
"Give me liberty or give me death" - Patrick
Henry
Henry