Not-a-Lemming : corruption

Killing Conservatism

FutbolGuru — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:45:00 GMT

So Rush Limbaugh wants to own an NFL football team, huh? He does seem to know alot about, and have a true love for, the sport. Funny how things a person says years ago can come back from the past to haunt them later in life. Sort of like what this blog will do to my writing aspirations if ever I get the attentions of a gatekeeper (i.e., agent or editor). But for now my anonymity is doing a great job of keeping me, well, anonymous.

In reality I don't think Rush is a racist. If he were, he wouldn't make such seemingly racist comments. No, I think in this case he is a victim of his own self-honesty - at least on that subject. Then again, that Donovan McNabb comment was pretty stupid and he should have known better.

Regardless, it seems his bid for partial ownership of the St. Louis Rams has met with an untimely end in what he says is a vicious smear campaign bent on destroying conservatism. While Al Sharpton and his many detractors are definitely not conservatives, I think Rush's perception of who is destroying conservatism is skewed. Though he is right, conservatism is on the decline.

Even if the talking heads on the left are trying to destroy conservatism that sort of assault is generally ineffective. It is tantamount to Americans trying to convert Al Qaeda. Conservatives simply don't repond to those kinds of attacks. Just like Liberals don't respond to attacks from the right. In general, either camp, when under assault from the other, tends to circle the wagons. And in many cases, attacks from the opposition strengthen the base. The problem with conservatism isn't the attacks from the outside, the problem is what's happening inside the wagon-circle.

Every successful movement goes through a series of stages. There is the genesis when the group's founders carve a niche for themselves and begin attracting followers. It is their energy and the truthfulness of their message (in the ears of the converts) that builds momentum by attracting true believers. In most cases the group's founders not only preach the message, but live it as well. They become icons and examples of the ideologies they champion.

The second stage can be broadly categorized as growth. In this segment the group gains additional members not only from the truth of the message but from the appeal of a successful group. Except during this stage one begins to see that new members are less and less true believers, but simply people who want to be part of something that matters. In this stage you'll find people from the opposition flocking to the new movement like lemmings. Especially if the opposition is already in the third stage - corruption.

Success of a movement always breeds corruption because in addition to attracting true believers, success always attracts followers who have no interest in the core ideology. They just want to be in charge. It is these people who usually become the second generation of leaders. Because they have no stake in the ideology they are more free to move fluidly and are nearly always more aggressive and predatory. At the same time they are often charismatic and charming and will do whatever it takes to rise into leadership positions. For these people charisma and charm formed early in life as they realized they had nothing substantive to offer but were skillful at manipulation of others to get their way. In many cases they are sociopathic and in a primitive society would be banished because they not only offer nothing useful to survival, they demand to be served. In modern, affluent societies though they find willing followers because they personify the energy of the movement's success in themselves, and the majority of the second stage converts are only there for the party. Or rather, the partying. These leaders also tend to promote only those like themselves which but reinforces the growing problem.

Corruption of course leads to decline. A hypocritical group of leaders can only sustain the charade for so long before the acolytes doing all the work - that dwindling number true believers - get fed up and leave. When that happens the ideology collapses and all you are left with is a large group of angry people with self-aggrandizong leaders: the Republicans in 2008. It is also where the Democrats found themselves in 1994 when they were tossed out by an up and coming group passing through the second stage: Neoconservatives.

Reagan rekindled the dormant flames of Conservatism and he was, there can be no doubt, a true believer who was amply endowed with charisma and wit. True conservatives flocked to him in droves followed by millions who just thought he was a cool guy because he stood up to the Soviets. It was the second generation of his followers who took the reins of power in 1994. This included George Bush Jr., Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, Marc Sanford, and many others, as well as popular figures such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity who effectively self-monetized the swelling tide. While I won't say all these people are not conservatives, their actions do identify them as people whose personal aspirations trump the mandates of their own ideology. And some of them, such as Mark Foley and John Ensign were conservatives in name only, using the ideology only for personal gain and herding their only followers like lemmings to the cliff.

It is these people, I charge, with destroying conservatism - Not Al Sharpton, Henry Waxman, Barbara Boxer, or even Barak Obama, who in fact tend to strengthen the opposition's core. From Rush Limbaugh's drug addition to Newt Gingrich's extramarital affairs, from Dick Cheney's greed to George Bush's mistaken invasion of Iraq, from the seemingly uncontrollable sexual appetites of an endless string of elected officials, the party of Conservatism has become the party of Corruption and is being killed from within. Can the Republicans take a lesson from the Democrats who have reinvented liberalism in the form of a young, charismatic outsider? With the same old names being bandied about, I got to tell you, it looks like a trainwreck in slow motion. Or a modern adaptation of the film White Wilderness. And I for one am not going to wear a furry suit for those characters.

Futbol Guru

I'm Not One of Those

FutbolGuru — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 03:17:00 GMT

It has become unfashionable in some circles to speak out against the rich. Of course it is a hobby on the left, and it is not at all uncommon for a wealthy congressman or actor to rail against excess, such as former South Carolina Senator Ernest Hollings’, famous statement that, “There’s too much consumin’ goin’ on.” Whether he’s right or wrong, his statement smacks of pandering, and for the most part middle-class Americans have been conditioned against openly criticizing the rich. We are free in this country and part of being free is the freedom to make tons of money and live the way we want. Who’s business is it to question how much money another person makes, even if it rises into the billions betting against our own economy and helping raise oil prices? In fact, speaking out against the rich is generally considered a sign of envy or jealousy and the speaker is often cast as less ambitious/intelligent/or otherwise lucky as the one he’s attacking. Across a large segment of society it has become un-American to speak out against wealth. It is even labeled as communist or socialist.

But it is exactly what I’ve been doing on Not-a-Lemming. Especially in my previous post. And I’m no communist or socialist. Most people who know me would call me a conservative. So how can I claim to be a conservative while at the same time bashing the rich in the land of rugged individualism? Can a conservative do that? And please don’t confuse the term ‘Conservative’ with the party ‘Republican’ or the orientation, ‘Right’. They are not now, nor have they ever been congruent even if their intersection is not the empty set. I can do it because I’m not bashing the rich. I am a staunch capitalist and am strongly in favor of innovation and the entrepreneurial spirit.

I got an iPod shuffle for Christmas. Actually I bought it for myself when I was shopping for my kids. It is one of the most amazing little devices I’ve ever seen. I’m no technophobe and have been aware of, and owned, iPods since their inception. But I remember a world before iPods. A world of transistor radios that rarely worked and clunky cassette and CD Walkmans that chewed through batteries like a teenage druggy burning through an inheritance. I now have a tiny device just a little larger than a postage stamp that can deliver hours of crystal clear music. That is innovation! That is legitimate wealth. Kudos to you Mr. Jobs. Live however you like. You’ve earned it, sir. And you’ve given back.

On the other hand, I live in a town supported primarily by government money. If our spigot ever dries up, this place with shrivel like lettuce in Palm Springs. A lot of people in this town start businesses, grow them, sell them, and get rich. Then they walk around with their heads in the air, literally, and puff about their innovation, sacrifice, and entrepreneurial skill. Except they built their businesses entirely on government money. Sure there were some long days writing proposals for government contracts, but for the most part their was no real personal investment, and the seed product of the business was almost always taken (some say stolen) from a competing company when the new business owner quit and took it with him. And these business owners invariably feel they earned it entirely through their own hard work and rarely give any of it back. Choosing rather to spend their windfall of fancy cars, second homes, and glitzy vacations.

Now Mr. Jobs has a pretty nice home, and I’ll wager that he’s got some nice cars too. And maybe even vacations from time to time, but there is a fundamental difference between what he does, and what these tax-suckers do. And now we’ve taken it to an entirely different level. A level which makes government contractors look like Mother Teresa. I’ll say it again as I’ve said it before, $750,000,000,000. And who acted like we were obligated to give it to them? Banks! Banks that took trillions (that’s $1e12 for you geeks out there) of investor money and evaporated it on bad loans in get-rich-quick schemes. They literally held the international monetary system hostage when they adopted an attitude that said, “Okay, don’t give it to us and see what happens.” How dare those bastards! And after losing our money!

This isn’t capitalism. It’s bad socialism. Perhaps even closer to Hitler’s fascism where the government propped up major industries to keep the war going. Yes, it is banks getting the money, but what about the executives that got them into that position? The failed executives. Did they give back their six-figure+ bonuses? Did they lose their mansions and second homes and personal bank accounts? Did their children have to drop out of the Ivy League schools they are attending? Will they be going on vacation this summer? Are their garages still filled with Mercedes and BMWs? Are their pension plans empty?

These people remained rich, and that is wrong. It is wrong because I’m NOT a communist. It is wrong because I’m NOT a socialist. In Soviet Russia party members became fabulously wealthy by diverting public rubles to their own accounts. All it required was a law. In socialist nations, the upper-class administrates public concerns which pay their salary out of the till. The same people who happen to run the government. And now that is America, too. I'm not saying they aren't entitled to it if they have worked for it. I'm just saying they aren't entitled to 14% of the GNP if they haven't worked for it. Especially after it was their poor management and lack of fiscal responsibility that got us into this mess in the first place.

Furthermore, I can think of no greater depressing effect on innovation and entrepreneurship than the bank bailout and the likely auto bailout. It has gazed straight into the eyes of the middle class and said, “fuck you.” I don’t apologize for the expletive. Expletives have their place, and this is it. This isn’t railing against the rich. This is railing against thievery. This is railing against communism and socialism at its worst. What incentive do I have to continue working night after night on actual products I hope to one day sell to actual people, when those who have figured out how to put their hand in the public till and pull out a dollar seem to have such a higher success rate? America was the land of innovation because innovation was rewarded. But how much longer will that be true in this climate? Especially when it is noted that those who actually earned money are far more willing to capitalize others than those who stole it. As the ratio of earners to thieves tips ever more in favor of the thieves, who for some reason feel they deserve their privileged lifestyle, actual seed money will become less, and less available. Innovators will leave for other places with fewer regulation and more favorable populations, and America’s monopoly on innovation will wither.

It is already happening. Europe, as it emerges from the effects of two world wars is gaining momentum. China, momentarily set back by the economic downturn, will regain her feet. And America, with capitol tied up in the hands of thieves, will seem increasingly less attractive to the talented and ambitious. It’s happened before.

So I reject any and all assertions that I am un-American, or communist, or socialist, or even jealous. I am a capitalist American who believes in fair play, equality of opportunity, and reward for innovation. You want to find a communist, go to an investment bank. He’ll be hiding in the closet under a pile of taxpayer money.

Next: Partners in Crime

-Futbol Guru, http://mises.org/Community/blogs/not-a-lemming

Protection At Any Cost

FutbolGuru — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 03:04:00 GMT

We forget things. We forget because we are people, and people are lemmings. For a moment, recall the basis for my analysis – the myth of the lemming. Lemmings DO NOT rush into the sea and commit mass suicide. Lemmings can, however, be frightened, especially by those who seek to benefit from their panicky mob behavior, whether they be unscrupulous film makers or former chairmen of major financial institutions. That is the lemming, those who fall prey to the machinations of others and join the crowd in running whatever direction without first checking where that direction leads. Lemmings, little, furry morons.

One of the things I seek to do on Not-A-Lemming is state the obvious. I do it because nobody else seems to want to. I do it because it is so often the obvious that is overlooked. Sort of like asking the furry, little hoard, "Why is everybody running this way when there's a cliff over there?" And that is the case today.

Seven hundred and fifty billion dollars. Also written $750,000,000,000. At my engineer’s salary I’d have to work for eight million years to make that much money. Actually 8.3 million years. (Or 8.3 million engineers could work for a year.) I’m going to keep harping on the $750,000,000,000 and writing it as $750,000,000,000, and not $750billion, or even 750 Gigabucks, because we should never forget that fourteen percent of our GNP was handed over to banks by a republican president backed by a democrat congress. Both parties are equally culpable in selling the middle class.

So why did they do it? No oversight. No accountability. That is enough money to give every person in New York City, all 8.7 million of them, my yearly salary, earned with 17 years of experience and a Masters Degree in stuff that’s just frankly, damn hard. Why? As always, history holds the answer.

I work hard for the living I bring home – which doesn’t go far on a family of five. Eighty hours a week, forty-nine weeks a year. I get three weeks of vacation but no sick leave. My 401K is a joke; it stank before the stock market tanked. I’ve got a few thousand dollars in the bank. And I do mean, a few. Realistically I’m looking at a second mortgage to get my kids through college and retirement isn’t really an option. I don’t really like my job. I tried for a Ph.D., didn’t have the cash to finish it, and wound up doing this. In a nutshell, my version of the American dream is kind of disappointing. If it weren’t for my utterly fantastic wife and exemplary kids it would completely suck. After my nine-hour day I write just about every evening working on novels I hope to someday publish, but it’s a long shot and I know it. I can’t even get anyone in New York to reply to my query letters. But my story isn’t unique. I’m a law-abiding, tax-paying, hard-working American. The backbone of our nation. I am Atlas. Something to be proud of. I’m not complaining. I’m connecting. With you. Because your American dream is pretty sweaty, too.

Now imagine a different life. Basically enough money to not worry about money. What you would do with it is your business. A lot of people buy cars, boats, fancy homes, etc. And it can be a trap. I’ve seen more than a few sucked in and ground up. Success can definitely be a trap. But it doesn’t have to be. Just imagine that life where you don’t wake up in the middle of the night worrying about how you’re going to put your kids through college. Or how you’re going to fix the roof you know is leaking in that downpour. A life where you’re not anxious about retiring someday, before you’re too old to use it. A life where you can live in the way of your choosing whether it be working a job you love, doing art, contributing to society. Or just sitting around wasting time at a beach on Manihi. (Look it up on Google Earth.) To each his own.

This isn’t reality for most of us. But it is for some. People who can, do. And history has shown that those who live this privileged life immediately begin to feel it is their right, and will do anything to protect it. Anything. Lie, kill, steal, even commit genocide if necessary. No affluent culture has escaped this doom; an entitlement class, just as dependent as the welfare poor, who will go to any length to not worry, to not work, to live their life of ease. Am I stating the obvious? That’s what I do. That’s all I do. Those of means will do anything to protect their privileged life. Never forget that.

$750,000,000,000. Why? How did our leadership come to the conclusion that it should be simply handed over without any strings attached? Maybe we should look at who these leaders are. Senators and representatives have a pretty sweet deal. Reps make $145,000 a year, senators make $165,200 a year. With expenses. And a staff. And an office. And influence for life. That adds up to far more than $145,000 a year. And they don’t really have to work. They don’t even have to show up. And many of them started out wealthy. And they get elected with money. Money elects people. Not votes, not speeches, not even good looks or great legs. Just ask Mr. Obama who raised more than ever before. As the global financial system teetered on the brink – or so the lemmings thought – they sensed that their gravy train was in jeopardy. The wealthy are heavily invested. They lose enough money and they might not be able to take a European vacation next year, much less contribute to the party of their choice. The answer, take 14% of the US Gross National Product and use it to shore up their financial base. Works every time.

And don’t forget, one reason the stock market has tanked is because investors, aka, those with money, are pulling it out. The middle class has shrugged and left it in. They have no choice. They know their only chance is for the market to go back up. And it will. But the wealthy, who can pull their money, have, and it’s driving the market down, down, down. And then they went to congress with their hands out. And congress made sure they didn’t go away empty handed. Congress was in essence, giving the money to themselves.

So I guess understanding why congress would just hand over 8.3 million years of my salary is pretty simple. They were protecting their privileged life. And they didn’t even have to kill anyone to do it. I guess we should thank them.

NEXT: I'm Not One Of Those

-Futbol Guru, http://mises.org/Community/blogs/not-a-lemming