Ron Morley's Freedom Blog : liberty

Why "Conservatives" aren't necessarily good for America

Ronald D. Morley — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 04:22:00 GMT

I've just finished reading Richard A. Viguerie and Mark S. Fitzgibbons recent pamphlet titled Reclaim the Constitution: A Pamphlet of Principles, Purpose, and Proposals for Constitutional Conservatives and must say that I am very impressed with the effort. One of the things which I am glad to see that the authors did was to disclaim any copyright of the document. This will allow it to be copied and distributed by anyone who wishes to do so. The document is released in PDF format and I've taken advantage of that to make my own comments about what has been written. I plan on sending the annotated document out to my mailing list of people whom I am concerned about. That list is not solely inhabited by constitutional conservatives. There are several liberals on the list and it will be interesting to see what they have to say about the pamphlet and my comments.

But it's the "conservatives" who may be most dismayed to read my comments. The fact that I am a libertarian drives some of my conservative friends batty. However, I have good reasons to be leery of the goals of the conservative movement in general, although those who declare themselves to be constitutional conservatives don't bother me as much. The reason for my differentiation is that so-called “conservatives” such as Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Bill O'Reilly and others of their ilk is that they are, based on statements they have made in the past, ready and willing to use the power of the Federal government to enforce a particular moral code upon Americans. For instance, those mentioned, and many more like them, have no problem with the Federal law called the “Defense of Marriage Act” -- which defines an “official” marriage to be only that state-sanctioned relationship of a man and a woman. No gays, transgendered, transexuals, or lesbians need apply. According to the moral code of conservatives the Federal government should legally exclude any other type of relationship from coverage of insurance, survivor's benefits, and any other financial and legal items that members of a traditional marriage can count on.

Such an outlook is simply wrong. For starters it is, on the face of it, unconstitutional. Nowhere in my multiple copies of the Constitution do I find anything related to marriage among the powers granted to the Federal government. Conservatives were (and probably still are) angry over Attorney General Eric Holder's decision not to defend the “Defense of Marriage Act” against suits brought in Federal court. The thing is, that is about the only constitutionally-defensible decision that the Obama regime has made. The AG is correct when he says that there is no constitutional justification for the act. It is the willingness of many conservatives to use the coercive power of the Federal government to enforce a particular moral code which makes me concerned about having any of them elected. After all, we've reached the point at which the Federal government pays little or no attention to the Constitution; a situation which conservatives generally ascribe to ill-will on the part of liberals and what they consider to be “activist” judges. What is it that makes them believe that their proposed exercise of government power is different from what they so detest liberals for doing? The answer is, nothing. Neither side is acting constitutionally in such matters. It seems to me that those who call themselves simply conservative have not really understood what the struggle to restore America to its position as the envy of the world for both our economy and our liberty is all about. The problem is that the Federal government is not only the nation's greatest law-breaker, but that its power continues to grow because of the efforts of statists, both Republicans and Democrats. People who propose to use the power of the government in order to enforce some particular way of acting, whether that is telling people not to drink corn-syrup sweetened sodas, not to eat salty snacks, not to marry someone of the same sex or not to ingest certain drugs are espousing expanding the power of the government.

It is by conflating social responsibilities and concerns with those of government that we have arrived at the current condition of government out of control at all levels. It is no legitimate concern of the government's whether or not gays marry. Indeed, one can go down the list of social concerns, ills, and wishes and find some element of governmental interference in the majority of them. It was a concern for the poor of this nation which began the Great Society drive of President Lyndon Johnson, though the groundwork of government involvement in social issues was laid long before. And, indeed, who could argue with the goals of the program: better education for children in impoverished areas, the establishment of Medicare and Medicaid as a way to help Americans afford better medical care, among other things? Where people went astray was with the assumption that “only the Federal government has enough resources and power” to attain their desired ends. That was not true then and it is not true now. All that results from reliance upon a faceless and increasingly soulless government bureaucracy is an ever-expanding list of things that people cannot do. It is only by establishing limits on human activity that bureaucrats can hope to write rules which may apply to everyone.

Of course, as soon as the rules writing begins, those who want some advantage or other under the government program begin lobbying for special treatment. When others eligible for the program see this they begin to worry that their share of the new government largess will be reduced and they marshal their forces in the form of demonstrations, ad campaigns, lobbyists, and all the other tools that the professional looters of the common purse have come to know so well. Some “worst-case” example is trotted out before the TV cameras and the sob-story is told, the underlying message being, “How can anyone object to helping this person/group?” In the end, whatever program is adopted, more money than originally advertised is spent and more restrictions are placed on the activities of those wishing to take advantage of it. Americans as a whole become poorer and less free while the government becomes stronger and more intrusive. And once the program, whatever it may be, is in place those who benefit from it fight to not only keep it in place, but expand it despite any counterproductive effects it may have on the budget, the supposed beneficiaries of the program, or the nation as a whole.

I'm not going to try to produce an exhaustive list of government projects which began small and, like Topsy, grew over the years into small empires of their own within the Federal government. However, I will note that virtually every one of which I'm aware began with a mis-reading or mis-interprtation of the Constitution. For instance, the now defunct Interstate Commerce Commission, was built on the idea that transportation is somehow commerce – in spite of that never being mentioned in any English Dictionary of which I'm aware. But the constitutionality of the ICC went largely unchalleneged. Why? Because the railroads realized that they could use the commission to do the dirty work of reducing competition for them; by the simple expedient of establishing barriers to entry for new roads which wanted to engage in interstate transportation of goods and passengers. And so it has gone with every other Federal regulatory agency – the “regulated” businesses soon figure out how to use the regulations to their advantage, generally to keep competition out of the field, and soon capture the regulatory agency by providing it with “expert” help in drafting the regulations. Regulation which cost an established business several million dollars a year are generally treated as just the cost of doing business. Those same regulations for a start-up often inflict insuperable costs upon the would-be new enterprise and it soon either drops out of the field or is bought out by one of the existing companies. The American people suffer both a loss of choice of products or services and, also, end up paying higher prices than they would in a free market because new, more efficient competitors are never allowed to get started. The irony of this is that many of the Federal agencies were established so as to ensure “fair prices” or “efficient services” or both: and they end up ensuring that neither goal is achieved.

”Crony capitalism” is a direct result of the growth of the Federal regulatory agencies. Every such agency has its share of lobbyists representing the various interests affected by the regulations promulgated by the agency. Because most of those regulations deal directly with businesses and industries most consumers are hardly aware of their existence. That lack of attention allows the “regulated” businesses to work with and “advise” the agencies, and the legislators responsible for the creation of ever more obscure agencies, on ways to make the regulations manageable or reduce their costs. But the American people pay the costs because of the reduction in market freedom and the limits placed on new entrants to any given established fields of endeavor. In the meantime, the businessmen who help make the rules become richer because they know how to manipulate those rules to their advantage (often with the connivance of the government “regulators” who are supposed to be overseeing them) while imposing new costs on competitors and the American people. Crony capitalism can only exist where the power of the central government is sufficient to reduce market freedom and the liberties of the people themselves. Reducing the size of the Federal government will automatically result in a reduction in the amount of crony capitalism which goes on behind the closed doors of Washington conference rooms, and the corruption which goes with it. If the American people force the Federal government to operate strictly within the bounds set forth by the Constitution, most of the problems of corruption and crony capitalism will go away. After all, no businessman is going to bribe a legislator who can't do him any favors because the government itself is strictly limited in what it can do.

The same would be true with the vast majority of our social problems. Those who truly care for the poor, the ill, and the downtrodden would soon come up with non-governmental solutions to those problems if the money flowing through the public trough were cut off. That's how Americans used to handle social problems, before the Progressives began preaching the “benefits” of an “active government” and that's how they'll do it again when the “active government” is forced to abide by the Constitution. Does anyone really believe that the nation whose people are always in the lead when it comes to giving for world disaster relief, or food programs, or disease eradication would deliberately turn their backs on those among them who are hurting? I, for one, have more faith in the American people than to think that, allowing them more freedom would turn them into a nation of Scrooges. The opposite is far more likely the case. The stories of men who were down on their luck only to have some stranger buy them a suit of clothes and start them on the path to prosperity are not merely folk-tales. Such things did happen in the past, which is why the stories exist, they happen today (as we sometimes hear from the news media), and they would happen in an America which is free of the opportunity-stifling rules and regulations which our governmental overseers insist we obey – for our own good, of course.

Would a freer America be a Utopia? No. But then, the path of socialism we've been on for close to one hundred years has led us only deeper into debt, produced a number of social problems which seem intractable, and, worst of all, destroyed the liberty and independence of millions of our fellow citizens. Surely, we owe it to ourselves and our posterity to put this nation back on the path it was on earlier in its history when we truly were the envy of the world – the place where everyone wanted to come, not becausse of our military might or our “survival net” of social programs, but so that individuals might pursue their own dreams in the way which seemed best to them. Yes, some people got left behind and didn't prosper, but that was largely the result of choices they made in deciding how they wanted to live. Looking at the numbers of people who are totally dependent upon the Federal and state governments for all of life's necessities I can't believe the situation would get worse. Only those who lack faith in the goodness of most of their fellow citizens find it necessary to place limits on how those people may act, force them to live as the government decides, and force them to spend money in places and on projects with which they disagree. Only those who believe that they know what's best for everyone espouse the creation of yet more rules restricting the liberties that America's Declaration of Independence proclaimed and which our Constitution sought to guarantee the continuation of. Both “conservative” Republicans and “liberal” Democrats who seek to use the power of the Federal government to coerce people to act in ways they favor are acting to destroy the very thing – liberty of individual action – which made America great. Only by sending those who would further extend their control over us packing, come election time, can America be restored to its place of greatness in this world. It's paradoxical but true – reducing the power of the government increases the power of the people; which, in turn, makes the nation itself stronger as it serves as an example of hope to millions around the world. Let's hope that the American people have the wisdom to vote in favor of freedom this coming November.

Liberty died in America today

Ronald D. Morley — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 06:43:00 GMT

I'm watching the results of the mid-term election as I write this and I am afraid that freedom died in America tonight. There have simply not been enough incumbents defeated to make an impression upon the entrenched elites who control the Big Government party which runs this nation. Yes, the House of Representatives has gone over to the Republicans, but those of us who were looking for the majority of that body to be composed of new people are disappointed. Yes, some of what the liberal mainstream media has taken to calling the “Tea Party” candidates have won their races. But their numbers are few, miniscule really in comparison to the total of 435 seats that were up for grabs. In order for those of us who believe in the principles of the Founding Fathers to claim victory at least two-thirds of the incumbents in the House and Senate, regardless of party, would have had to lose their campaigns for re-election. As it is, not enough true believers in the principles held so dear by the men who founded this nation have been elected to matter. It is apparent that the majority of the American sheeple do not care about personal liberty; do not care about reducing the role of the Federal government in their lives; do not want to make the hard choices that will be needed in the next few years if this nation is to avoid bankruptcy; and do not care about the gross violations of this nation's Constitution which those who rule us from Washington, D.C. make every day.

Liberty died tonight in America and the nation will be the worse off for it. The leaders of the Republican party will make noises about how the American people have demonstrated their desire for smaller government and a return to so-called “conservative principles”. However, those in the leadership positions of that party have not changed and those leaders have shown themselves incapable and/or unwilling to fight for those principles when they had control of the Congress and G.W. Bush was openly gutting the Constitution and spending this country into an amount of debt that was unbelievable until President Barak Obama spent nearly three trillion dollars to surpass it. These men will not change their course, because not enough incumbents, of both parties, lost their seats today. Only the loss of more than half, at least, of incumbents, regardless of party, would have sent a loud enough message to the entrenched power-mongers of Washington that the American people are tired of the course this nation has been on for most of the last century. I have no confidence that those who have spent their lives accruing power to themselves and to the Federal government will change their way of doing business because a few “radicals” were elected. If nothing else, at least four or five of the Republicans who won seats in the House tonight are merely returning to their former seats. They will resume business as usual, because they will see their return to office as vindication of their previous policies.

Liberty died tonight in America and the world will be worse off for it. The American Empire will carry on as it has for the last half-century. Our military presence in over one hundred countries around the globe will continue. Our many treaty obligations will continue to threaten to engulf us in wars across the world, in areas ranging from the former Soviet republic of Georgia, to the Baltic states of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, and the Asian nations of Japan and South Korea. Wars in any of these areas do not pose an existential threat to the United States, but our leaders have seen fit to ignore George Washington's advice to avoid entangling foreign alliances and have put the lives of this nation's citizens, the accumulated treasure of our nation, and the very principles upon which this nation was founded at risk – simply to prop up countries and regimes that have no strategic significance for this country. Our military and its associated budget will continue to expand. People around the world will continue to see the United States as militaristic, expansionistic, and willing to take unilateral military action whenever its leaders sense some threat to their position of power. It is this perception of a United States which solves its foreign relations problems by throwing its military weight around, which makes our nation so unpopular with many people and nations around the world. This will not change because the American people showed today that they have no real interest in changing the destructive course this nation is on.

Liberty died in America tonight and most Americans don't care. The results of this election clearly show that the majority of the American people have no desire to preserve their civil liberties. By returning a majority of the House of Representatives to their seats the American people showed that they approve of the course that has been set for this nation by both the “Republican” and “Democratic” wings of the Big Government party which controls this nation. Americans had an opportunity to “throw the bums out” tonight and they failed to take advantage of it. There can be no clearer demonstration that the average American, in spite of the hopes of patriots, is not interested in forcing the Federal government to return to governing by the rules set down in the Constitution. The American people have shown themselves to be uninterested in removing the larcenous fingers of the Federal government from around their wallets; or removing the ears of the many secret Federal police agencies from their phone conversations; or removing the eyes of those same police from their emails; or removing the ability of the multitude of Federal regulatory agencies to put in place new regulations which result in the loss of millions of jobs and millions of dollars; or repealing Obamacare; or putting education back in the hands of local people who know best what the needs of their children are; or doing away with any of the multitude of Federal programs and policies which have no constitutional validity. Instead, Americans showed today that they will happily go along with continued growth of the monster of the Federal government; with all of its abuses of civil liberties. The American people have shown today that they have no interest in reducing the role the Federal government plays in their lives: no interest in reducing the confiscatory taxes imposed by the Federal government;no interest in taking responsibility for their lives; no interest in ensuring that their children will live in a free country. The American people supinely surrendered their birthright of freedom today and we are all losers because of it.

What President Obama could have said

Ronald D. Morley — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:54:00 GMT

Newly sworn-in President Barak H. Obama could have said a lot of things during his inaugural address today. He could have said that he recognizes that the current financial crisis is a direct result of interference by the Federal government in the workings of the marketplace. He could have said that he understands that Federal policies aimed at extending credit to those who could not afford it fueled the fires under the housing bubble. He could have said that it is now obvious that Federal regulatory policies have led to marketplace collapses of unprecedented magnitude and that those policies need to be not simply re-examined, but scrapped wholesale so that the markets in the United States could indeed be called “free”, not simply in the rhetoric of politicians, but in reality. President Obama could have admitted that his proposed economic stimulus package is economically wasteful, inefficient, and likely to prolong the economic problems that it is supposed to solve.

President Obama could have said that no more bailouts will be provided to any business or group which finds itself in economic trouble. He could have called for an immediate halt to the on-going process of the nationalization of large parts of the American economy. He could have forthrightly said that the Federal gravy train for UAW workers, in the guise of the “bailout” of the Detroit automakers, and for Wall Street bankers in the form of TARP funds, is going to come to a screeching halt. He could have said that it is unfair, unethical, and economically unsound practice to require taxpayers who make less than UAW workers and Wall Street bankers and brokers to support those who wantonly gutted the companies which provided them employment. The new President could have said that he realizes that the only way out of the economic mess we find ourselves in is to allow a marketplace free of restrictive Federal regulation to sort itself out and reallocate the malinvestments, that have been made over the last couple of decades because of misguided Federal policies, so that assets are once again usefully employed and people are able to find work in private enterprise instead of within some gigantic make work Federal program which will simply suck the lifeblood out of private enterprise.

President Obama could have said that the Federal government will no longer be in the business of choosing who will win and who will lose in the marketplace. He could have announced that he would begin this process by canceling his much-ballyhooed plan to spend billions of Federal dollars on“green” technology. He could have said that , after careful study, he now understands that the best way out of the health-care crisis that this nation finds itself in is to get the Federal government out of the business of paying for, providing, and regulating health-care. He could have forthrightly recognized that much of each dollar spent on health-care in this country is the direct result of providers having to pay for the expense of ineffective and unnecessary Federal regulation of the health-care marketplace. He could have said that, after further study, he understands that any government-funded health-care system automatically leads to the rationing of health-care resources. He could have said that he realizes that the way to lower health-care costs is to remove Federal regulation and allow competition to determine the price and availability of health-care services.

The newly inaugurated President could have said that he intends to abide by the oath which he took to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States” and that he would begin that process by vetoing any bill which falls outside the list of eighteen items found in Article I, Section 8 of that document. He could have called for the immediate reigning in of the power of the Federal government by saying that he would immediately disband Federal agencies such as Health and Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Labor Department, the Surface Transportation Board, and every other Federal bureau and agency not authorized in the explicit and plain language of the Constitution. He could have said that he plans on making the expansion of liberty the keystone of his new administration, not by expanding the reach of Federal regulators to control what American citizens can do, but by disbanding those agencies which are not only unconstitutional, but are also counterproductive so far as the expansion of liberty is concerned. President Obama could have admitted that our government has strayed very far from the vision of a free nation, inhabited by citizens for whom the government acts as an enabler of liberty, rather than the restrictive beast that it has become. He could have gone on to say that he will begin immediately to dismantle the liberty-destroying apparatus of the Federal regulatory state which has grown up since Franklin Delano Roosevelt's open assault on the classical liberalism that this nation was founded upon.

However, President Obama chose not to say any of those things. Instead, he focused on how the role of the Federal government will expand under his administration: “this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control “ is as direct a statement that he intends to expand the interference of the Federal government in the marketplace as one will get in an inaugural address. He intends to go ahead with his economically foolish “stimulus” plan by stating, “...we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together...” He went on to say that, “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. “ There is no recognition here that it is the State itself which is the cause of much of our current distress. Instead, we will be served up more of the same: more Federal government regulation, more Federal spending (under a misguided belief in Keynesian economics), more Federal interference in the marketplace, and certainly, a continuation of the process of nationalizing yet more pieces of the American economy. President Barak Obama did indeed have an opportunity to lay out a plan for making a radical break with America's immediate past, and a return to the principles upon which this nation was founded and which served it well until certain “progressive” politicians decided that they knew better how to live the lives of ordinary American's, than did those citizens themselves. There will be no real change, no recognition that the current way of doing things simply does not work, but is, simply put, destructive of that freedom which the new President claims to hold in such high regard. Because the old policies have signally failed there is no reason to believe that the so-called “new” policies, which are, in reality, merely rehashes of tired liberal programs and goals, will fare any better. The American people are in for yet more disappointment and disillusionment. Perhaps this time they will recognize that electing another Democrat or Republican will not change things, and that the way forward is to vote for those candidates who actively support the libertarian principles that made this nation great. To continue to do otherwise is simply to prove that, according to Einstein's definition of insanity (repeatedly doing the same thing while expecting different results), the American body-politic is far from sane.