My Political Views, Part One

Two posts that caught my eye, one from Say Uncle, who writes about his differentiation of Libertarian and libertarian, and this one from Rich, of Shots Across The Bow, who runs down his political beliefs, got me thinking that maybe I should do something similar. So, here we go.

I am something of a contrarian by nature. If everyone is going this way, I will automatically look for the other way. I think it's a leftover from the days of ego-definition during childhood. I had strong-willed parents and had to fight hard to create a "me" that wasn't them. I also went my own way a lot, which led to a lot of parental fights. So, I'm stubborn and contrarian.

I think that's a small part of why I am Libertarian. That is, politically a member of the party. The herd is Democatic or Republican; not me. But I'm also deeply impressed by the incredible experiment that is the American Revolution. The men who launched it were all largely self-educated and quite knowledgeable about their political history. We are their beneficiaries. I take quite seriously what they set out, and hew closely especially to the Jeffersonian ideals. We stayed, as a country, within their shadow for longer than the Founders expected, until Jacksonian democracy (or Hamiltonian anti-federalists, take your pick) began the long, slow slide to corruption.

I believe "that which governs least, governs best" at the Federal level. National government is a powerful and dangerous tool. It's too far removed from the people themselves to be given more than the most fundamental and broad duties: protection of our borders, defense from our enemies; regulation of commerce across the States, collecting and publishing information from and about the Nation, ensuring equality of access and opportunity in our basic liberties.

Social engineering was never in the plan and never should be. It is the right of the people to create the society they want, free from the government telling them how it "ought" to look. We launched out into that experiment in the late 19th century with the Progressives and it's warped our society and nation in all kinds of ways. I firmly believe people should have the freedom to associate as they wish, and then be given the consequences of those choices. If people want to do stupid things, we should try to talk them out of it, but if that's their choice we are then beholden to leave them free.

It's not the job of government to stop someone from doing something repugnant to me. It's my job to educate them, or if they choose not to listen, to educate everyone else. Together, the rest of us can go on. The better ideas will win out, as they always do.

When I went from blindly following what I was taught to thinking for myself is when I went from Catholicism to atheism. It's also when I went from Republicanism to Libertarianism. Even despite his criminality and venalism, Nixon was a disaster; China may be his lone, true accomplishment. I think that's when I started to turn. Reagan was a great President, but he never got to put Republicanism into government; Democrats still controlled the mechanisms. Seeing G.W. Bush's Republican Party today, finally given the reins and squandering their chance, has only confirmed my beliefs. Both parties are only separate wings of the same over-class; men and women concerned only with their own power and privilege, to the exclusion of true principle.

The Libertarian Party is the closest to my own political stripe. I acknowledge that the Party has a lot of problems. I've heard allegations about the national office and how it's run. Look up the stories for yourself; I don't know enough to comment more than this.

The Party is also afflicted by True Believers, those who want it all now. Far too many who run the Party at the important levels brag about overturning drug and sexcrime laws, tearing down public education and the social safety net, stripping out a vast body of law, etc., the day after the election. It's the whole thing, right now, deal with it. Best of luck to the winners; good riddance to the losers. Theirs is a smug and condescending view that doesn't sell well at all, as we've seen.

Well, any idiot knows that won't happen. And expecting people to embrace a radical change with welcome is naive. Progressives/Socialists/Communists/Democrats have trumpeted their own agenda for a century, sometimes by letting the most honest voices be cast to the fringes so that the agenda won't be stopped. They never turn away a small victory because it isn't the whole victory they sought. They never stop, and have worked hard to get their hands on the levers that control our society.

This isn't to label most Democrats/Socialists as evil conspiracists. (Some are, and I would encourage you to learn much, much more about Antonio Gramsci, who laid down a blueprint that should be frighteningly familiar.) But most are honestly motivated by a misguided compassion and desire to do good that has been coopted into a view of government that is paternalistic and smothering. It's the Mommy State; and we know what Momma's Boys and Girls end up like.

True adults must be made through tough love, education, instruction, discipline and facing adversity. Most grown-ups today (I have to include myself if I'm going to be honest here.) aren't true adults: strong people with strong moral codes, a willingness to do what must be done to defend their family and property and society, and littler tolerance for those who fritter away what has been given them or endanger those around them. Not everyone will become a true adult, but it's not the job of government to assure that, nor to pick up the pieces of the messes they'll make. When I know someone else will clean up the mess, I'm not encouraged to be careful, skeptical and thrifty. But if I'm the only person who is looking out for me, then I'm very, very careful indeed.

That's not to say we shouldn't have help for those who need it. But it should come from the people directly, through the agencies they themselves create and operate, not through a third agency of the government. A society is only as moral as the people must be. When my moral duties are taken over by another, I become less of a moral person. I don't have to help you because there is a nebulous "someone else" to do it for me.

But if I know there's not going to be help unless I provide it, then suddenly it's my personal morality and ethics at stake. For example, I spent a year in alcohol and drug treatment, by my own choice. But I later spent almost eight more years working in the field, because I wanted to be sure that I paid back for what I'd taken for so long, and to be sure that the same help I got was there for the next man or woman. Doing so derailed the life I had intended to live, and the money I might have made, but I don't dislike the life I live today, and I'm very grateful to have given what I did to someone else.

Government can't do that for me. It's an impersonal and overarching manacle to the soul. Federal government should only be given, as it was in the Constitution, those duties that cannot be performed adequately on the local level. We shouldn't have a national drug treatment system; one size fits all wouldn't work. But treatment options that arise from the needs of the local community will effectively deal with the local problem. To keep itself going, it will inform and educate the local citizens of the problems in their own community, motivating local action.

For example, Memphis Mayor Herenton at one time advocated the City buying a local hospital that was closing to turn it into an adjunct of the jail. People arrested on alcohol and drug charges that didn't involve other crimes, like public intoxication or reckless behavior, would be sent to this facility overnight instead of the jail. The next day, they would be given a chance at treatment, which would also occur at the facility. If they decline, they go to the judge; if they accept, they immediately go into treatment. Following treatment, they'd go back to the judge for dispensation. That's a great idea, as it relieves a lot of the crowding at the jail that alcohol- and drug-related behavior brings. It keeps the dangerous folks locked up and keeps the non-criminal from getting a free introduction. I supported this kind of government program because it is local in origin, intent, operation and action. I can go down there and see for myself what's going on. I can meet with my City Council representative to talk about it. I can show up at government meetings to voice my opinions. I can protest outside the appropriate agency if there's something wrong.

That's the difference. With a Federal program, it's all far, far beyond anything I can do. Everything becomes vast, faceless. Bureaucrats can shift me around forever.

Well, I certainly didn't intend an essay here. And I still haven't explicated my own philosophy. I guess that'll be Part Two.