Conservatism needs work

[PuckChaser]

I figured this was really the only relevant topic to put this. Harper isn't this evil robot the media seems to make him out to be. Yes he knows the politics game well, and plays it heavy-handedly, but I contend he needs to do that to keep the minority government running (its worked wonders so far). My proof that he's not a robot? This video of 2 songs he performed at the Conservative Caucus Christmas party, not for a photo-op, but to entertain his party members. He's actually not that bad at singing either, I'd invite him out to karaoke.

The video: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20101208/harper-piano-tories-101208/ Includes 2 songs, Sweet Caroline and Jumpin Jack Flash.

 

[Redeye]

Since the latter half of the 1960’s and up until now, right leaning and conservative Canadians have watched in horror as the Canadian Left has slowly eroded away at our national heritage and Judeo-Christian values, replacing our honor and our pride with watered down new nationalism consisting of bashing upon the United States and applying the usage of “Eh” at the end of any sentence. 

Now for Canadians who oppose this rather tepid and uninspired “New Nationalism”, haven’t had many options in the past, other than immigrating to the United States, where they have found their new fellow citizens share with them a common bond, but also have found that every time they venture back to their country of birth, they feel more disconnected from it, to the point where one day, they either abandon their Canadian Citizenship entirely or it simply becomes a footnote to tell their children and grandchildren about.

Now the question posed to us, is how do we make conservatism both more relevant in Canadian society? I believe that by making the following changes, we can stem the exodus of right wing Canadians and make conservatism relevant in the Canadian political area.

The Issues:

Free Speech:

Now when it comes to freedom of speech, Canada would rate rather highly by international standards, but unfortunately we are not fully free to express ourselves. I would like to direct your attention towards the “Section 01” of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which includes a “Limitation Clause” which does not protect all free speech.

Now to many conservative minded Canadians the idea that your speech could be regulated or even challenged under the law, is both fairly abhorrent and defies the freedoms in which our forefathers fought and died to defend.

Now some will tell us that we should limit things such as hate speech, or the promotion of genocide or any other topic which we might find unpleasant. The problem with this line of thinking is that, all sides should be able to express their views, no matter how offensive, ill informed or wrong they may be. After all, the cornerstone of a democracy is the right for the citizenry to be heard, and that voice should be unimpeded, no matter what it feels the need to express.

Broadly we don't have the freedom not to be offended, but one should no more have the right to incite hate or violence than they should have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.  Use of the law to restrict freedom of expression should be (and interestingly enough, is) rarely used, only under the most extreme of circumstances.

Firearms Control:

Now many on the left would tell you, that by limiting the ability of citizenry to bear and keeps arms makes for a safer society, but this is simply not true!

For many years now, the Canadian population has had their firearms rights either abrogated or restricted to the point, where Canadian Citizens now have to take mandatory firearms courses, register their weapons with a large and ineffectual government body and finally will no doubt be found guilty if they were to ever use those weapons in defense on their own dwelling. Now thankfully our friends at the National Rifle Association, and its Canadian equivalent the National Firearms Association have helped to stem some of the ludicrous legislation put forward by those on the left, for the most part we are slowly trundling down the path to becoming a firearms free country.

After all, when did we vote to abrogate our right to self defense, and put our fate in the hands of ruffians, rapists and murderers? I for one, feel unsafe in most parts of Canada these days, as I know that if I were to be assaulted, I would no doubt be faced by an armed attacker, who could cause me grievous bodily harm or potentially kill me, but if I were to defend myself with a less than lethal alternative such as OC spray or an ASP baton, I would be treated on the same level, as those who have attempted to accost me, and God forbid if I were to use a firearm.

Right.  Because America with its fairly "liberal"/"permissive" stance on firearms ownership is so safe, and proves that proliferation of firearms without much for control makes for so much more orderly a state.  I have no problem with reasonable and prudent restrictions on access to firearms.  Mandating background checks, safe handling training, etc doesn't strike me as a particularly big intrusion.  Neither, really, does registration.  I oppose it on the more practical basis of the fact that it doesn't do anything.  And I own firearms. Plural.

Gay Marriage:

Though in recent years this issue has mostly faded into the background, but for many conservative Canadians it remains a strong bone of contention.

Now like many changes that tend to happen in modern Canadian society, rather than being put to a vote, the issue of allowing homosexuals to marry was taken out the hands of the Canadian voter and pushed through the legislative process as though it were nothing more than footnote to larger and more pressing national concerns.

Now for anyone of faith, the idea that homosexuals can marry is a fairly repulsive concept, but what furthermore puts the proverbial stick in the eye, when it comes the gay marriage debate, is the fact that men on the cloth who volunteer to serve in the Canadian Forces, are forced to allow gay marriages in their place of worship, even though their calling as a man of God, expressively forbids this practice.

For anyone of faith?  Well, it seems you're wrong there.  Many churches in Canada embrace the reality that some people happen to be homosexual because that's the way they are, and presumably, in the eyes of someone of faith, the way "God" made them.  Last time I checked, no religious organization is compelled to marry anyone that doesn't meet their requirements.  A Roman Catholic priest could refuse to marry me just as easily as they could choose to refuse to marry a gay couple, and to the best of my knowledge, none of us would have any recourse.  Why has this issue faded into the background?  Because it's done, the sky didn't fall and won't fall, and we've all moved on.

Socialized Medicine:

Now some will say, that one of the greatest things about living in Canada is our access to “free healthcare” though for anyone who has had to endure the nightmare that is the Canadian healthcare system, they’d rather worry about co-pays than have to deal with the “quality” care that is the Canadian Healthcare System.

Now many activists will tell you that in the United States, that socialized medicine is a right and that they’d rather have a country that took care of everyone, and in no way would want the citizenry to have any form of personal responsibility for their healthcare needs. Now I will admit that it’s true that in the United States that many Americans are uninsured, and do not have regular access to a healthcare provider, but I can also unequivocally say that no one is ever turned away, contrary to myth popularized by the left in Canada.

Socialized medicine, does not provide a better standard of care, and more than often it’s actually worse than if an individual did not seek treatment at all. Also, when it comes down to brass tacks, there’s no such thing as free healthcare, but instead we are simply being gouged by the government, while not having the option to seek private care, unless you leave the country.

No one is ever turned away.  Right.  And who pays for that care, generally administered by emergency rooms at very high cost, and often for things that preventative medicine might have abated?  Oh yeah, EVERYONE.  Sounds pretty socialized to me already, so why not actually have a universal insurance system so that everyone can access care?

I like your "better standard of care" canard.  Numerous studies would argue differently, but why let facts get in the way.  Private systems deliver excellent care for those lucky enough to be able to afford access, but what of those who cannot.  What of those who for all the personal responsibility they feel cannot afford adequate insurance, or worse, cannot obtain it due to pre-existing conditions.  What of those who have their insurance rescinded or realize that it doesn't cover enough?  I'm pretty glad I'll never face that nightmare.  I'm married to an American who's experienced both systems.  She has a chronic condition that would give any insurer in the States a convenient excuse to deny her coverage.  Guess which system she'd rather deal with.

Anyone who thinks healthcare is "free" is of course an idiot.  There's room to improve our system, yes, but you will never convince a majority Canadians that universal healthcare is a bad thing, and any improvements will need to be made within that context.

The Solution:

If we want to create an atmosphere in Canada that is more friendly to conservatives and right wing minded people, then we must push for judicial reform when it comes to our freedom of speech and expression, and push for the repeal of “hate speech laws” and any other judicial activism that infringes on the rights of Canadian Citizens to freely express themselves.

Provide a specific example of how such laws in any way have been used to unjustly infringe on the rights of anyone.  Then maybe I'll take you seriously.

On the issue of firearms control, conservative Canadians must educate their fellow citizens about the right to bear arms, and we must push for both the establishment of a constitutional reform that would recognize the right to keep and bear arms, along with the right to concealed carry and the right to defense of one’s property (Castle Doctrine).

Good luck with this argument.  That right doesn't exist in Canada, it never has (except by a very liberal interpretation of English Common Law) , and I stand a better chance of accomplishing the (actually physically possible) task of walking through a concrete wall than ever seeing Castle Doctrine being accepted in Canada.  Ditto with CCW.

With reference to the issue of gay marriage, a simple solution would be to push for a repeal of the current status of gay marriage, and then to push for constitutional reform on the issue, and hopefully allowing for the passage of a defense of marriage act, that would protect traditional marriage, and would permanently bar gay marriage on Canadian soil, or the recognition of gay marriages abroad.

Great, so we'll reopen an idiotic and pointless debate (that's rather ironically unconservative, why should the government have any say over the matter to begin with) so it can go before the courts who will then again rule the same way on the whole thing.  Anything else we should waste a bunch of time and money on while we're at it?

Finally, when it comes to the issue of socialized medicine, the first step must be the repealing of the Canadian Healthcare Act, and allow doctors to charge what they feel is reasonable for their services. Also, the insurance industry in Canada would expand, thereby creating jobs and making for a more prosperous and healthy nation.

Good luck!

In conclusion, with a little bit of gumption, and willingness to seek change, conservative Canadians can again make Canada a shining city which the world would envy, and would do much to stem the “brain drain”, and make the decision to move down to the United States, a climatic one, rather than a political, economic or moral decision.

Thanks for this post illustrating exactly why conservativism has waned in Canada and will continue to do so.

 

[Nemo888]

Ex-Shad,

All these issues are irrelvant. No electable party would dare change legislation on any of those issues. Though many will make noises about them in the time leading up to an election to play to the base of single issue voters. Single issue have a voter turn out 3 to 5 times greater than the average lazy Canadian. Playing to your single issue gives you the ability to punch above your weight at the ballot box. But if you play to them too much you lose centrist voters which are the majority.

Free Speech limits in the constitution are irrelevant. I can think of no one being prosecuted currently.

Easing firearms restrictions would please rural voters and alienate urban ones and a disproportionate number of women.

Ending gay marriage would destroy your urban votes. Most people in cities know gay people. If they have been around awhile they know how bad things were when AIDS was in full swing. People were dying and their mates had no access to their  pensions, health insurance or had medical power of attorney. Leaving family members who had not been spoken to in over 20 years to handle the estate. Often not letting them see their dying life mate. That is what started the gay rights movement in the first place(@Mario below IMO not many straight people cared until this started happening en masse). The majority of urban voters would write you off as an insensitive jerk.

Ending socialized medicine would alienate almost everyone. Letting the poor suffer in a very rich country is about an un-Canadian as you can get. That issue alone would lose you 75% of the vote immediately.

I hope the Conservative party would wake up and stop pandering to this base. 90% plus of the issues government faces are economic. These issues are noisy distractions. There has been no movement on any of these issue since 2005. But what are they doing about the record deficit? How will Canada deal with the American economy going down the toilet perhaps for decades (see Japan)? So what did we learn from the financial meltdown? Are Laissez Faire and trickle down the best models for growth and prosperity or can strengthening the middle class allow society to make larger gains? Should something be done about the insane level of income disparity?

Your already have a party. You don't need to make Conservatives irrelevant. It's called the Christian Heritage Party. The Conservative party wants to be elected. Your regressive ideas are the touch of death to a majority government.

 

[Brad Sallows]

What evil lurks in the hearts of politicians?  The Shad knows.

 

[mariomike]

Ending gay marriage would destroy your urban votes. Most people in cities know gay people. If they have been around awhile they know how bad things were when AIDS was in full swing. People were dying and their mates had no access to their  pensions, health insurance or had medical power of attorney. Leaving family members who had not been spoken to in over 20 years to handle the estate. Often not letting them see their dying life mate. That is what started the gay rights movement in the first place. The majority of urban voters would write you off as an insensitive jerk.

I believe Operation Soap started the gay rights movement in Canada.
Toronto: 7 Feb 1981
"3,000 go on rampage in Metro riot: Homosexuals protest steambath police raids"

"The event is now considered one of the crucial turning points in Canadian LGBT history, as an unprecedented community mobilization took place to protest police conduct. One of the protest marches during this mobilization is now generally recognized as the first Toronto Pride event.":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LGBT_history_in_Canada#1981


Edit to add. Yellow highlights mine. - mm
This was before AIDS was first reported.

 

[a_majoor]

The ongoing existence of "Human Rights" tribunals and commissions is the ongoing threat to freedom of speech and expression, particularly in the fact there are no standards of process or evidence such as found in Courts of Law. Several Canadian Bloggers are being prosecuted (or perhaps persecuted is the correct word) under these provisions.

You can be accused and never face (or even know) your accuser, sessions are held in camera to prevent the public from knowing what goes on, hearsay is allowed as evidence while the truth is not allowed as a defense (Mark Steyn and Maclean's Magazine were accused and prosecuted for accurately quoting a European Iman, and the accusers were able to "shop" for jurisdictions and eventually filed identical complaints in BC, Ontario and the CHRC). Luckily, Saskatchewan has struck a blow for freedom by eliminating Tribunals and forcing the commission to take complaints into the Court system where rules of procedure and evidence will be enforced.

We also have the arbitrary powers of the CRTC, which in its infinite wisdom, "deemed" that Canadians were "satisfied" with their existing service and simply refused to hear the application of QMI for a new television channel; a procedural trick which makes it impossible to appeal. Canadians who are satisfied with existing services can keep them, Canadians who are not satisfied are not given a choice in the matter. (If Canadians really were "satisfied", QMI would not have sensed an unmet demand and started the project; if they are wrong, they will loose their shirts and few will be the worse for it).

Unfettered and unaccountable powers by unelected bureaucrats is the biggest single threat to freedom, and the Conservatives have a potential "two-fer"; they can reign in the debt by defunding and eliminating many of these unaccountable agencies, or sharply limiting their powers (the CRTC should simply be in charge of auctioning off spectrum and ensuring there is no technical overlapping of frequency bands; there is no need to control what we watch or listen to).

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
Unfettered and unaccountable powers by unelected bureaucrats is the biggest single threat to freedom, and the Conservatives have a potential "two-fer"; they can reign in the debt by defunding and eliminating many of these unaccountable agencies, or sharply limiting their powers (the CRTC should simply be in charge of auctioning off spectrum and ensuring there is no technical overlapping of frequency bands; there is no need to control what we watch or listen to).

Without boring everyone with technical details, that is not what the CRTC can or should do. It (spectrum management) is already done, competently, by Industry Canada.

The CRTC does have one useful role: when Industry Canada says "there are n AM radio, n' FM radio and n* VHF and UHF TV Channels in ________ region," then someone must decide who gets to use them. That role rests with the CRTC in Canada. Since the "good old days" of the Board of Broadcast Governors the CRTC's powers have been expanded, usually unnecessarily, into various other areas like telephony (which is no longer a monopoly that needs regulation) and cable (which has, practically, limitless bandwidth). One could, even, argue that broadcast licence auctions would suffice for station assignments, too.

 

[a_majoor]

The CRTC does have one useful role: when Industry Canada says "there are n AM radio, n' FM radio and n* VHF and UHF TV Channels in ________ region," then someone must decide who gets to use them. That role rests with the CRTC in Canada. Since the "good old days" of the Board of Broadcast Governors the CRTC's powers have been expanded, usually unnecessarily, into various other areas like telephony (which is no longer a monopoly that needs regulation) and cable (which has, practically, limitless bandwidth). One could, even, argue that broadcast licence auctions would suffice for station assignments, too.

Thanks for the clarification, this is what I was trying to say, but poor wording on my part muddled the picture.

 

[a_majoor]

What Conservatives (Classical Liberals, libertarians etc.) have to do to win the culture wars:

http://blogs.forbes.com/objectivist/2010/12/27/can-arthur-brooks-beat-back-big-government/

Can Arthur Brooks Beat Back Big Government?
Dec. 27 2010 - 1:11 pm | 252 views | 3 recommendations | 4 comments
posted by YARON BROOK AND DON WATKINS

Arthur Brooks has struck a mighty chord with his recent bestseller The Battle (Basic Books, $23.95). Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, has received endorsements and accolades from political heavyweights, from Paul Ryan to Newt Gingrich to Karl Rove. The Battle has become a battle cry for those seeking to reverse the alarming expansion of government under President Barack Obama (and, for that matter, under President George W. Bush).

But The Battle cannot win the war: It cannot stop the growth of the state.

What’s the central message of The Battle? That the advocates of big government have offered a potent moral case that wealth redistribution promotes the happiness of society, and that the supporters of free markets need to articulate their own moral defense of capitalism in reply. Brooks’ argument, in short, is that wealth redistribution does not make people happy. The source of genuine happiness is earned success, i.e., “the creation of value” by the individual — and it is capitalism that fosters earned success. To defend capitalism in moral terms, he concludes, is to defend it as the system of the pursuit of happiness.

There are important elements of truth in this narrative, but there is also a gaping hole. What Brooks doesn’t acknowledge is that the pursuit of your own happiness is at odds with the near-universal view that we have a moral obligation to sacrifice ourselves to the needs of others — and that the basic reason we live in an ever-expanding welfare state is because, when faced with a choice between the individual’s pursuit of happiness and his duty to serve others’ needs, we almost always choose the latter.

Consider a few of the steps that led to our current welfare state.

There was the creation of Social Security. Americans were faced with a choice: either leave each individual free to save and invest for his own retirement, or force him to sacrifice his wealth to serve his elderly neighbors’ needs. Americans decided that the needs of the elderly took precedence — and government grew.

Later came the creation of Medicare and Medicaid. Americans were faced with a choice: either leave each individual free to buy insurance and save for his own health care, or force him to sacrifice his wealth to buy health care for the elderly and the poor. The needs of the others took precedence–and once again, government grew.

That same pattern, on issue after issue, is what is responsible for the growth of America’s welfare state. Some group’s need is held to take moral precedence over the rights of individuals, and so the state grows. What was ObamaCare except an effort to meet the needs of the uninsured?

The question a defender of the free market would have to answer is: When do we side with the pursuit of happiness and when (if ever) do we side with the morality of need? How do we resolve such conflicts?

In The Battle, Brooks never addresses this question. The closest he comes is in a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that he co-authored with Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), in which he suggests that we simply have to draw the line somewhere. While we need to sacrifice the pursuit of happiness to the needs of others sometimes, “income redistribution and government care should be the exception and not the rule.” We just have to decide — somehow, at some arbitrary point — that enough is enough.

But that is a failed prescription. As Brooks himself observes, it’s how we got into this mess in the first place. “Why not lift the safety net a few rungs higher up the income ladder? … More generous pensions for teachers? Hey, it’s only a few million tax dollars–and think of the kids, after all. Individually, these things might sound fine. Multiply them and add them all up, though, and you have a system that most Americans manifestly oppose.”

The fact is that however much we value individual happiness, in a contest between it and the needs of others, most of us believe the needs of others (“think of the kids”) should take priority. Isn’t that what morality teaches us?

The real battle for capitalism is the battle over the question: Is it moral to pursue our own happiness? If so, then why should we ever be forced to sacrifice for the needs of others? Is the moral call to sacrifice, which we’ve had drummed in our heads since childhood, right?

Only one thinker has ever challenged the morality of need and defended the moral right to pursue your own happiness: Ayn Rand. And it’s no accident that, with the ascendancy of Obama, her most famous book, Atlas Shrugged, has been selling better than ever.

 

[ModlrMike]

Personally, I think today's society is all about the pursuit of happiness... provided someone else does the work.

 

[Nemo888]

Ayn Rand Thucydides? Do you actually know what Ayn Rand stood for?

Rand advocated the right to legal abortion.[93] She opposed involuntary military conscription (the "draft")[94] and any form of censorship, including legal restrictions on pornography.[95] Rand opposed racism, and any legal application of racism, and she considered affirmative action to be an example of legal racism.[96] As a life-long atheist Rand rejected organized religion and specifically Christianity, which she decreed "the best kindergarten of communism possible."[97] More recent Objectivists have argued that religion is incompatible with American ideals, and the Christian right poses a threat to individual rights.[98] Objectivists have argued against faith-based initiatives,[99] displaying religious symbols in government facilities,[100] and the teaching of "intelligent design" in public schools.[101] Objectivists have opposed the environmentalist movement as being hostile to technology and, therefore, to humanity itself.[102] Objectivists have also opposed a number of government activities commonly supported by both liberals and conservatives, including antitrust laws,[103] public education,[104] and child labor laws.[105]

93 ^ Rand 1964, p. 103
94 ^ Rand, Ayn (1989). "Of Living Death". The Voice of Reason. Edited by Leonard Peikoff. New York: New American Library. ISBN 0-453-00634-5.
95 ^ Rand 1967, pp. 226–228.
96 ^ Rand 1982, pp. 173–184.
97 ^ Rand 1964, pp. 173–184; cf. Wortham, Anne (1981). The Other Side of Racism. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press. ISBN 0-8142-0318-3.
98 ^ Burns 2009, pp. 43
99 ^ Peikoff, Leonard (June 1986). "Religion Versus America". The Objectivist Forum 7 (3). http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?&id=5360.
100 ^ Epstein, Alex (February 4, 2003). "Faith-Based Initiatives Are an Assault on Secular Government". Ayn Rand Institute. http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?&id=7475. Retrieved 2009-06-19.
101 ^ Binswanger, Harry (March 3, 2005). "The Ten Commandments vs. America". Ayn Rand Institute. http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?&id=10889. Retrieved 2009-06-19.
102 ^ Lockitch, Keith (December 11, 2005). "'Intelligent Design' Is about Religion versus Reason". Orange County Register. http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?&id=11555.
103 ^ Rand, Ayn (1999). "The Anti-Industrial Revolution". Return of the Primitive. Edited by Peter Schwartz. New York: Meridian. pp. 270–290. ISBN 0-452-01184-1. ; Berliner, Michael S (April 18, 2008). "The Danger of Environmentalism". Ayn Rand Institute. http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?&id=8403. Retrieved 2009-06-21.
104 ^ Greenspan, Alan. "Antitrust" in Rand 1967, pp. 63–71.
105 ^ Hessen, Robert. "The Effects of the Industrial Revolution on Women and Children" in Rand 1967, pp. 110–113.

This platform of Extreme Conservatism looks like a great election platform,....if you like LOSING! Why not try something, well, more conservative.  Most people like antitrust laws, public education, and child labor laws. I know I do.

 

[a_majoor]

As a matter of fact I do know what Objectivism is about, and have read Ayn Rand. IF you re read the post carefully, you will see the central argument of that post concerns the idea of who our work and effort should be directed towards.

One does not have to be an Objectivist to believe that a person is the arbitrator of their own efforts and should collect the rewards of their work, likewise one does not have to be an Objectivist to suggest that charity is giving of yourself, not forced redistribution of your time and effort ("Spreading the wealth around" to quote a well known political figure).

Remember, there is nothing to stop you, personally, from treating with people who share your values, or withdrawing your trade and association with people who do not share your values, donating to charities of your choice or personally volunteering to help others. The argument is really should you be forced to contribute to causes you do not support, and by extention, is it moral to strip you of resources which you could have contributed to causes you do support?

 

[a_majoor]

“ I believe in the United States of America, as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.

I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies."
 
— William Tyler Page, The American's Creed

From the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/21/AR2011012106907.html

An anti-authority creed
By George F. Will
Sunday, January 23, 2011

America is a creedal nation and the creed is, as Robert Penn Warren wrote, the "burr under the metaphysical saddle of America." It is a recurring source of national introspection, discontent, self-indictment and passionate politics. We are in the midst of a recurrence.

The tone of today's politics was anticipated and is vindicated by a book published 30 years ago. The late Samuel Huntington's "American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony" (1981) clarifies why it is a mistake to be alarmed by today's political excitements and extravagances, a mistake refuted by America's past.

The "predominant characteristics" of the Revolutionary era, according to Gordon Wood, today's preeminent historian of that period, were "fear and frenzy, the exaggerations and the enthusiasm, the general sense of social corruption and disorder." In the 1820s, Daniel Webster said "society is full of excitement." Of the 1830s, Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, "The country is full of rebellion; the country is full of kings. Hands off! Let there be no control and no interference in the administration of this kingdom of me." As the 20th century dawned, Theodore Roosevelt found a "condition of excitement and irritation in the popular mind." In 1920, George Santayana wrote, "America is all one prairie, swept by a universal tornado." Unusual turmoil is not so unusual that it has no pattern.

By the time Huntington's book appeared, American had had four of what he called "periods of creedal passion" - the Revolutionary era (1770s), the Jacksonian era (the 1830s), the Progressive era (1900-20) and the 1960s. We are now in the fifth.

The American Creed's values are liberal, as that term was understood until liberalism succumbed to 20th-century statism. The values, expressing the 18th century's preoccupation with defending liberty against government, are, Huntington said, "individualistic, democratic, egalitarian, and hence basically anti-government and anti-authority." The various values "unite in imposing limits on power and on the institutions of government. The essence of constitutionalism is the restraint of governmental power through fundamental law."

What made the American Revolution a novel event was that Americans did not declare independence because their religion, ethnicity, language or culture made them incompatible with the British. Rather, it was a political act based on explicit principles. So in America more than in Europe, nationalism is, Huntington said, "intellectualized": "We hold these truths to be self-evident." Who holds them? Americans. Who are Americans? Those who hold those truths to be self-evident.

America is an inherently "disharmonic society" because the ideals of its creed are always imperfectly realized and always endangered. Government is necessary but, Huntington says, "the distinctive aspect of the American Creed is its anti-government character. Opposition to power and suspicion of government as the most dangerous embodiment of power are the central themes of American political thought."

In 20th-century Europe, the ideologies that propelled change - Marxism, F ascism - were, Huntington noted, utterly unlike those that animated the 18th century. "In the United States, in contrast, the themes, slogans, and concerns of one creedal passion period strongly resemble those of another." Ideologies minted since the Revolutionary era, such as Marxism, have had slight impacts on American politics. Although many intellectuals consider American political theory unsophisticated, it is more central to political practices than theory is in other countries.

After the Founding, there was, Huntington thought, a change in Americans' "dominant conception of human nature." The image of man as inherently sinful, dangerous and in need of control by cleverly contrived political institutions yielded to a much more benign image of man as essentially good and potentially perfectible. But, Huntington wrote, "both views were used to justify limitations on government." If men are bad, government should be weak lest men put it to bad uses. If men are well-intentioned and reasonable, strong government is not necessary to control them, so "government should be weak because men are good."

Periods of creedal passion involve returns to first principles - hence the Tea Partyers' orientation to 1773. "Americans," Huntington believed, "become polarized less over the substance of their beliefs than over how seriously to take those beliefs." Today, the general conservatism of this center-right country and especially the Tea Party impulse demand renewed seriousness about the creed's core skepticism about government. Modern liberalism's handicap is its unhappiness with this core.

"It has been our fate as a nation," wrote historian Richard Hofstadter, "not to have ideologies but to be one." It is an excellent fate, even if - actually, because - the creed periodically, as now, makes America intensely disharmonic.

 

[a_majoor]

Another burr under the saddle that is driving the conservative movement in the US and to a lesser extent throughout the world. Why be played for a sucker when you can join frces and make real changes to the system?

Instapundit 30 Jan 2011

CHANGE: The Squeezing Of The Middle Class.

Another sign of the coming middle class anarchy? If the middle class gives up on the rule of law, beware.

UPDATE: A reader who requests anonymity emails:
This is something I have thought about a lot, and is an important story. There are so many important stories, it’s easy
to miss a long term one, like this. Everyone agrees the possibility of a middle class, and its belief in the fairness of the system has been one of the main drivers, in differentiating America, maybe the most important.

We now have a system that increasingly, means you have to either work for or sell to the government, or have its blessing through interpretation of the rules and regulations to operate. We see the favored and connected moving forward regardless of actions. Here in TN, they are building a Volkswagen plant and Nissan USA moved to Nashville with private funds, but the favored were bailed out because of Big Labor. We see the out of favor not be allowed to drill for oil or receive permits for coal, as easy examples. We see the bond and shareholders of large financial firms protected by changes in accounting rules, and given liquidity using failing loans as collateral at 100 cents on the dollar, while community banks are closed or merged out weekly.

We read monthly of large firm “settlements” of civil fraud, and other deeds, that would make any smaller business close their doors, because of shame, lawsuits or being barred from any new business, But those firms pay some money, and are valued guests at the White House and mainly at fundraisers.

We read that large multinationals through overseas subsidiaries, pay single digit US taxes, keeping the money overseas. While the smaller companies I am associated with, pay the full rate. We have no Irish solution to taxation. We read that a repatriation holiday probably will be allowed. We know that Hedge funds pay at the Capital Gains rate, while we pay at regular rates.

We have 10-20 million “guest” workers, that have to work off the books, which means all their employers, have to pay “off the books, so everyone is learning to break the law together. Unless the government needs a headline and an arrest, all are fine, so, why not do the same with Non Guest Workers ?

Anyone of us can go on and on with examples, probably better ones. The point is, the people and companies that do everything “by the book”, are like the Redcoats in the revolutionary war, using an old system, matching down the middle of the economic battlefield. The people that are connected, or simply ignore the rules are hiding behind the trees and rocks, shooting at the system.

Now the middle class knows, we do not have the money, lawyers and connections, to get away with as much as the larger firms, so most people will not attempt as much. But the belief system is being eroded, and quickly, like the banks of a full river, is takes some time, but the water is brown with the eroded soil.

But more and more, I feel stupid for playing by the rules, and I know I am not alone. Because the rules are no longer what I thought they were all my life.

The new system is get what you can, and throw away the old fashioned economic moralities.

Everybody loses in such a system, but at least they don’t feel so much like suckers. However, if the middle class asserts itself it can change things for the better instead. That’s why so many fear the Tea Party movement.

 

[a_majoor]

An interesting take on an ancient philosopher. Since Conservatism, Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism are all about how individuals deal with rights, property and freedom, Sun Tzu has some sage advice on how to deal with bureaucratic States which value rules in order to try to eliminate uncertainty (which is of course impossible in a universe with infinite degrees of freedom. See also the Local Knowledge Problem)

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/stratblog/2011/02/08/sun-tzu-the-enemy-of-the-bureaucratic-mind/

Sun Tzu: The Enemy of the Bureaucratic Mind
Walter Russell Mead

Reading Sun Tzu’s classic The Art of War for the Bard grand strategy seminar this winter was an unsettling experience.  Of course, that is the point.  The Art of War is one of those books that doesn’t want to sit there in your lap; it wants to reach up and slap you in the face.

My predecessor at Bard and the man for whom the chair I hold was named was the writer and editor James Clarke Chace.  James always started his courses by telling students that “Many of your teachers have tried to tell you how the world ought to work.  In this class I’m going to teach you about power: about how things actually happen.”

That is a very Sun Tzu thing to say.  The Art of War comes out of a culture where political correctness reigned: Confucian China attached enormous importance to ideas of correct conduct and correct speech.  To do something in the wrong way was to do the wrong thing.  Ethical Chinese scholars rejected concepts like the use of deception in warfare and believed that the aim of politics was to establish a benevolent state under a wise and absolute ruler who would use unlimited power to promote the general good.

It was a culture of bureaucracy and meritocracy.  China is famous for inventing the rigorous civil service exam, with posts awarded to candidates based on their demonstrated academic knowledge.  By and large the classical works of Chinese literature on the exams celebrated the ideals of propriety, conformity, and respect for the ancient traditions.  In the quiet library of Confucian literary studies, The Art of War is like a fart in church.

In Sun Tzu’s world, war is the most important thing for the ruler to study.  Winning is the most important thing in war.  Deception is the way to win.  Sun Tzu plays the same role in Confucian China that Machiavelli plays in the Christian west: both writers say that the basic institutions and power arrangements of their society depend on qualities and behavior that can and frequently do violate that society’s deepest beliefs and ideals.

Statue of Sun Tzu (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Our ideals and our values tell us that social justice and righteous dealing win out in the end.  If we want to be powerful we must support democracy and human rights around the world.  Sun Tzu begs to differ.  He is a deeply offensive man and no decent university in the United States would allow him to teach.

Take his attitude toward women.  Testing to see if Sun Tzu’s methods would in fact lead to better military performance, the king of Wu told Sun Tzu to teach the king’s 180 concubines to march in good order.  Very systematically Master Sun instructed the women until he was sure they knew what to do.  He gave the order to march; they laughed.  He reviewed the procedures one more time; when they failed once again he took the two ‘generals’ — the king’s favorites — and had them beheaded.  The king told him to stop the exercise and spare the women; “No”, said Master Sun.  “You’ve put me in charge of the army; it’s military justice on the field.” The two favorites died; the rest of the women marched in perfect order.  Master Sun was confirmed in high command.

Sexism, trafficking in persons, violation of human and legal rights, insubordination, militarism and general authoritarianism: a modern American university would be more likely to send Sun Tzu to the Hague to be tried for war crimes than to give him tenure.  Many ancient Confucians felt the same way, but nevertheless Sun Tzu’s influence survives.  Morality counts, but at least for some benighted people winning also matters.

Some have tried to turn The Art of War into an antiwar classic.  It is true that Sun Tzu speaks constantly about the wastefulness of war, and urges kings and generals to avoid fighting whenever possible.  The greatest general is the one who wins without fighting, Sun Tzu says piously (and correctly), but then goes on through the rest of his text to give advice to those lesser generals who are forced into war.  And that advice is pretty ruthless.  There are no tactics and no weapons that Sun Tzu would exclude on moral grounds.  This is not a book from which international lawyers and disarmament activists can take much comfort.

The Art of War, a book which has inspired Chinese emperors, Japanese shoguns, Napoleon, Mao Zedong and Ho Chi Minh, does not just subvert conventional morality.  It is even more profoundly opposed to the bureaucratic mind: the approach to the world that believes that everything can be reduced to technique and procedures.

Much of America today is as addicted to bureaucratic, rule based thinking as ancient China.  The uncertainties of life in a thermonuclear world haunt us.  There must, we feel, be infallible techniques for making the economy grow, keeping inflation at bay, understanding international events and managing American foreign policy.  When there is a problem — a financial crash, a revolution in a friendly country, an attack by hostile forces — somebody must have made an obvious mistake.  They must have misapplied or failed to apply an obvious technique.  We would rather believe that our leaders are foolish and incompetent (which they often are) than face the truth that we live in a radically unpredictable world in which no methods and no rules can guarantee safety.

Sun Tzu’s approach is directly opposed to most modern thought about social problems.  He speaks about art and comes to war from a deeply Taoist worldview that highlights chaos, evanescence and change.  We study “IR theory” and “political science” in the hope that some rational explanations exist that will hold all this chaos at bay.  (At Bard I am happy to say we have “Political Studies” instead of “Political Science”; the more modest title recognizes the limits of the discipline. Sun Tzu, I think, would approve.)  We want sure and safe rules: democracies don’t go to war with each other, rational considerations guide the policy of great states, most problems have win-win solutions that everyone can accept, the age of great power war is behind us.  Sun Tzu says we are fooling ourselves by inventing these rules, blinding ourselves to perils on every side.

The Art of War is a handbook for living in an uncertain and dangerous world.  It is dominated by paradox: training is necessary to produce a good general, but any general who comes to trust the rules he has learned is headed for defeat.  The successful general will have studied The Art of War so profoundly that he ceases to trust it.

I was not reaching for hyperbole when I wrote that this is a book that wants to slap its readers in the face.  Like a Zen monk trying to astonish and trick the novice into a moment of enlightenment, Sun Tzu seeks to surprise, to shock and ultimately to awaken his readers.  He is not teaching a body of doctrine but a habit of mind: a habit of attentive clarity out of which can come true judgment and decisive action.  To the one with this habit, Sun Tzu’s specific precepts about war are highly useful and applicable to many domains beyond war.  To the one lacking this awareness, Sun Tzu is worse than useless; he can breed that false confidence which is, next to despair itself, the attitude most likely lead to utter and overwhelming defeat.

The nested paradoxes of Sun Tzu remain the Alpha and the Omega of the study of war.  That is why we start our study of grand strategy with this book; I hope students in the class and those who follow us online will keep those paradoxes in mind as we move through the semester.

 

[a_majoor]

The End of the Beginning

An interesting Youtube clip which attempts to explain the historical forces which unleashed "Progressiveism" and the realignment of forces which spell the end of that particular philosophy. What comes in the Post Progressive age isn't clear, but we can see some foretastes in the use of Internet and other technologies to create our own social, political and economic networks outside of centralized control. (Think of shopping on Amazon.com. Also think of how Amazon.com shoppers don't have to pay tax on their purchases...)

 

[ModlrMike]

One of the most insightful comments on the subject:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

– C. S. Lewis

 

[a_majoor]

The idea that libertarianism is a social movement rather than a polirtical one fascenates me. Here is another example of libertarian/objectivist tropes slipping into the mainstream by seemingly stealth means:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-objectivist-with-the-dragon-tattoo/?singlepage=true

[/quote]
The Objectivist with the Dragon Tattoo

With his Girl with the Dragon Tattoo trilogy, for reasons that will likely forever remain unknown, a Scandinavian leftist managed to create a libertarian parable for the ages.
March 12, 2011 - by Benjamin Kerstein Share | 

One of the strangest publishing phenomena in recent memory is the extraordinary international success of Stieg Larsson’s Millennium trilogy. A semi-famous left-wing Swedish journalist who died young and relatively uncelebrated, the three mystery novels Larsson wrote before his death, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, The Girl Who Played with Fire, and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest, have sold millions of copies worldwide, gained a dedicated cult of adoring fans, spawned a hugely popular Swedish film series, and set in motion a Hollywood remake directed by celebrated filmmaker David Fincher.

There is really only one reason for the massive success of Larsson’s trilogy: a fascinating, unique, and entirely fictional young woman named Lisbeth Salander. While the books’ Swedish setting, their overtones of political and social criticism, and their main character, the plodding journalist and obvious Larsson alter ego Michael Blomquist, are interesting variations on the conventional mystery, it is Salander who elevates the proceedings into something entirely new in crime fiction.

Women have figured in detective novels before, of course, all the way back to Agatha Christie’s whimsically menacing old spinster Miss Marple, but there has never been anything like Lisbeth Salander. A genius computer hacker with a photographic memory, Salander is also a bisexual, possibly autistic, anti-social misfit who stalks the streets of Stockholm with a punk haircut and a face full of piercings. A victim of longtime physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, Salander is given to fits of barely controlled violence directed against those who have exploited, abused, and wronged her. She is now a role model and hero to women worldwide, mainly because of the brutal and uncompromising revenge she takes on the rapists, murderers, and other assorted criminals she encounters over the course of the Millennium trilogy. She — and her popularity — are also a glorious spanner in the works of what, on the surface, appear to be the very conventional liberal politics of Larsson’s books.

Larsson’s personal political views are not in doubt. He was a longtime member of the Swedish radical left, and his magazine Expo was famous for exposing the dark underbelly of the Swedish right wing. In an early and now invalidated will, he went so far as to leave all his assets to the local communist party. At first glance, the novels seem to follow Larsson’s ideology fairly closely. Blomquist, Larsson’s alter ego, is an aging libertine who carries on a longtime affair with another man’s wife — with her husband’s knowledge — and spends his time bedding numerous women while congratulating himself for not bowing to conventional social expectations. The Expo-like magazine he runs is all but identical to Larsson’s own. The books themselves deal with subjects like rampant violence against women, trafficking in prostitutes, and the crimes, conspiracies, and cover-ups engineered by the collusion between government and big business. Indeed, there are moments when the books seem to stop dead in their tracks so that one of Larsson’s characters can deliver an NPR-style bromide on a subject dear to the liberal heart.

In the midst of all of this, Lisbeth Salander explodes like a grenade tossed into an ammunition dump. Ferociously individualist, incorruptible, disdainful, and suspicious of all forms of social organization, and dedicated to her own personal moral code, Salander often seems to have stepped into Larsson’s world from out of an Ayn Rand novel. She despises all institutions, whether they are business corporations, government agencies, or the Stockholm police. Rejecting all forms of ideology, she is dedicated only to her own individual sense of justice. Relentlessly cerebral, she trusts only what she can ascertain with her own mind and her own formidable talents. She considers Blomquist a naïve fool because of his belief that social conditions cause people to commit the horrible crimes he investigates. At one point, as Blomquist ponders the motivations of a brutal serial killer, Salander erupts, “He’s just a pig who hates women!” Salander believes there are no excuses, everyone is responsible for their own actions, including herself, and must answer for them accordingly.

In short, Salander is as close to an avenging angel libertarianism is ever likely to get, and her presence in the novels throws the books’ politics into a bizarre contradiction. Far from the left-wing bromide in favor of democratic socialism it appears to be, the Millennium trilogy, as Ian MacDougall has pointed out in the leftist journal n+1, often appears on second glance like a calculated and relentless evisceration of the Swedish welfare state. Indeed, not only is Salander a walking rebuke to the myths of Scandinavian socialism, but she  is usually portrayed by Larsson as being absolutely correct in her attitude toward it. “In this Sweden,” MacDougall writes:

The country’s well-polished façade belies a broken apparatus of government whose rusty flywheels are little more than the playthings of crooks. The doctors are crooked. The bureaucrats are crooked. The newspapermen are crooked. The industrialists and businessmen, laid bare by merciless transparency laws, are nevertheless crooked. The police and the prosecutors are crooked.

In Larsson’s world, it is only the individual — usually Salander — with their own personal sense of right and wrong and the courage to act on it, who can save the day.

It is, perhaps, telling that millions of readers around the world, whatever their political orientation, have become fans of the Millennium series and especially of Lisbeth Salander. Indeed, it appears that Steig Larsson, though he himself might have been horrified at the prospect, gave birth to one of the great literary ironies of our time: for reasons that will likely forever remain unknown, a Scandinavian leftist managed to create a libertarian parable for the ages.

Benjamin Kerstein is a writer and editor who lives in Tel Aviv.
[/quote]

 

[a_majoor]

Anti-Intellectualism is a charge often trotted out by opponents of conservative thought. Here is an interesting debate on the front page of Instapundit today (04 April 11):

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/

"A DEFENSE OF “ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM:”

    Part of the problem is that the American distrust of intellectualism is itself not the irrational thing that those sympathetic to intellectuals would like to think. Intellectuals killed by the millions in the 20th century, and it actually takes the sophisticated training of “education” to work yourself up into a state where you refuse to count that in the books. Intellectuals routinely declared things that aren’t true; catastrophically wrong predictions about the economy, catastrophically wrong pronouncements about foreign policy, and just generally numerous times where they’ve been wrong. Again, it takes a lot of training to ignore this fact. “Scientists” collectively were witnessed by the public flipflopping at a relatively high frequency on numerous topics; how many times did eggs go back and forth between being deadly and beneficial? Sure the media gets some blame here but the scientists played into it, each time confidently pronouncing that this time they had it for sure and it is imperative that everyone live the way they are saying (until tomorrow). Scientists have failed to resist politicization across the board, and the standards of what constitutes science continues to shift from a living, vibrant, thoughtful understanding of the purposes and ways of science to a scelerotic hide-bound form-over-substance version of science where papers are too often written to either explicitly attract grants or to confirm someone’s political beliefs… and regardless of whether this is 2% or 80% of the papers written today it’s nearly 100% of the papers that people hear about.

    I simplify for rhetorical effect; my point is not that this is a literal description of the current state of the world but that it is far more true than it should be. Any accounting of “anti-intellectualism” that fails to take this into account and lays all the blame on “Americans” is too incomplete to formulate an action plan that will have any chance of success. It’s not a one-sided problem.

    If you want to fix anti-intellectualism, you first need to fix intellectualism and return it to its roots of dispassionate exploration, commitment to truth over all else and bending processes to find truth rather than bending truth to fit (politicized) processes.

(Thanks to reader Jonathan Stafford for the link.) This is much like what Neal Stephenson said in In The Beginning Was The Command Line:

    The twentieth century was one in which limits on state power were removed in order to let the intellectuals run with the ball, and they screwed everything up and turned the century into an abattoir. . . . We Americans are the only ones who didn’t get creamed at some point during all of this. We are free and prosperous because we have inherited political and value systems fabricated by a particular set of eighteenth-century intellectuals who happened to get it right. But we have lost touch with those intellectuals.

Indeed.

UPDATE: It seems I have the above Stephenson quote wrong. A reader emails:

    You’ve several times quoted Stephenson as writing:

    “The twentieth century was one in which limits on state power were removed in order to let the intellectuals run with the ball, and they screwed everything up and turned the century into an abattoir. . . . We Americans are the only ones who didn’t get creamed at some point during all of this. We are free and prosperous because we have inherited political and value systems fabricated by a particular set of eighteenth-century intellectuals who happened to get it right. But we have lost touch with those intellectuals.”

    But every copy of “In the Beginning was the Command Line” I’ve been able to find does not contain this quote anywhere. I fact, the phrase “state power” does not appear anywhere in the text, not even once.

    Following the link you provide (to Amazon.com), and using their ‘look inside the book feature’ turns up the following, and it’s the same in every version I’ve examined:

  “But more importantly, it comes out of the fact that, during this century, intellectualism failed, and everyone knows it. In places like Russia and Germany, the common people agreed to loosen their grip on traditional folkways, mores, and religion, and let the intellectuals run with the ball, and they screwed everything up and turned the century into an abbatoir. Those wordy intellectuals used to be merely tedious; now they seem kind of dangerous as well.

    We Americans are the only ones who didn’t get creamed at some point during all of this. We are free and prosperous because we have inherited political and values systems fabricated by a particular set of eighteenth-century intellectuals who happened to get it right. But we have lost touch with those intellectuals, and with anything like intellectualism, even to the point of not reading books any more, though we are literate. We seem much more comfortable with propagating those values to future generations nonverbally, through a process of being steeped in media.”

    I’m confident you’ll want to correct this error, as it seems somewhere along the line someone’s twisted Stephenson’s words somewhat, and accuracy in quotations and references are important.

My copy of Command Line is at the office, but looking inside the book on Amazon this seems to be right. Further research reveals that the opening bit about state power is an introductory phrase from a law review article that somehow got put inside the quote, which is probably my error, though since I originally posted this in 2002, I’m not positive where I got it from then. But I’ll go back and correct the earlier posts as well. I don’t think the sense of the quote is wrong, but nonetheless I apologize for the error, and thank the reader (whose name isn’t in his/her email address) for the correction. To err is human, but to be corrected by anonymous readers is blogging!

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Santiago Valenzuela writes:

    Thoughtful article, but I am always disturbed by conservative anti-intellectualism.

    Particularly, what disturbs me, is that it equivocates intellectualism per se with a specific species of intellectualism (statism of various stripes.) Why have conservatives ceded the title of intellectual to their opponents, instead confidently putting their faith in their gut instincts, “common sense,” and other decidedly “non-intellectual” ways of deciding? While it may be superior to statism in this case, it doesn’t make it good.

  So why not instead say “These intellectuals have failed. Our intellectuals have a better grasp of reality and how men must live in it”? Why a rejection of intellectualism per se? It troubles me, because I have a profound respect for rational thought and a systematic approach to the troubles humanity faces, and seeing people mock that because one crop of intellectuals chose their theoretical models over reality can’t bode well.

Well, anti-intellectualism can mean two things. One is opposition to intellectualism, but the other is opposition to self-described “intellectuals” — who, often as not, are more credentialed than educated, and frequently not particularly intellectual at all except in mannerisms and self-description. We should, I think, be more explicit about distinguishing between intellectuals, and activists who mimic the mannerisms of intellectuals.

MORE: Hanah Volokh emails:

    I found your recent blog post on anti-intellectualism interesting, particularly the last comments from Santiago Valenzuela and your response to them. I also find conservative anti-intellectualism troubling, and I think it’s important to separate it into three separate points:

    1. Left-wing intellectuals are wrong substantively.

    2. Many people who claim to be intellectuals are actually not intellectuals at all, but activists.

    3. Central planning is not the best way to run a government or economy, so intellectuals do not need to be running things.

    Still, to understand why central planning is a bad idea, and what we should have instead, and to get at the answers to numerous substantive policy issues, intellectuals are crucially important.

    You may also be interested in this recent Stanley Fish column that attempts to describe academic intellectualism to laymen. It is particularly helpful at identifying the difference between an intellectual and an activist (full disclosure: I was an attendee at the conference he describes).

Thanks!

 

[a_majoor]

The growth of the conservatives in Canada, the TEA party movement in the United States and the growth of libertarianism as a social movement may all be related to the "preference cascade", as the control of information and the "narrative" is broken by the communications revolution:

http://moneyrunner.blogspot.com/2011/04/american-preference-cascade.html

The American “Preference Cascade”

What’s a “preference cascade?” It’s people who believed they were alone in their beliefs who suddenly find out that they are part of a much larger group. It’s human nature to not want to be an oddball. It’s human nature not to want to be a one-man revolution. It’s when you find out that most of the people around you share your views that revolutions are made.

It’s perfectly illustrated by a post by Glenn Reynolds explaining how revolutions seem to appear out of nowhere.

    “This illustrates, in a mild way, the reason why totalitarian regimes collapse so suddenly. (Click here for a more complex analysis of this and related issues). Such regimes have little legitimacy, but they spend a lot of effort making sure that citizens don’t realize the extent to which their fellow-citizens dislike the regime. If the secret police and the censors are doing their job, 99% of the populace can hate the regime and be ready to revolt against it – but no revolt will occur because no one realizes that everyone else feels the same way.

    This works until something breaks the spell, and the discontented realize that their feelings are widely shared, at which point the collapse of the regime may seem very sudden to outside observers – or even to the citizens themselves. Claims after the fact that many people who seemed like loyal apparatchiks really loathed the regime are often self-serving, of course. But they’re also often true: Even if one loathes the regime, few people have the force of will to stage one-man revolutions, and when preferences are sufficiently falsified, each dissident may feel that he or she is the only one, or at least part of a minority too small to make any difference.”


It also illustrates why the Tea Party movement occurred when it did. Certainly, trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see had something to do with it. Certainly collapsing home prices had something to do with it. Certainly ObamaCare with its government take-over of health care had something to do with it. Certainly staggering unemployment unchecked by those trillions the government wasted had something to do with it. Certainly promises of tax hikes had something to do with it. But this “perfect storm” was accompanied by the internet revolution which did away with the MSM as the gatekeeper of news and opinion. The internet enable Americans to realize the extent to which their fellow-citizens dislike the regime.

For the first time, people were not dependent on the MSM’s control of the narrative; they were able to create their own “people’s narrative” even as the NY Times, Washington Post, the alphabet networks and the local dailies still shilled for the Obama regime. And like the people in Cairo and Damascus, they found that their ideas were not solitary ones. They found that their friends and neighbors thought exactly the same thing that they did and they turned out in the streets for the first time ever – a Conservative street demonstration. It was unheard of ....revolutionary.

The establishment did what it could to quench the fires. They called those who opposed the regime racists … bigots … used slurs that branded them as sexual deviates, calling them "tea baggers." Today, as gas prices rise toward $5 per gallon, we are being told that Obama can’t do anything about it, even as oil exploration in the US is being blocked by the Obama administration. Whether he can or not is the subject for another essay, but that’s not what you heard when George Bush was President.

Now that Obama's president, the link between the president and oil prices is severed.  Rising Gas Prices Linked to Obama Drilling Ban in Just 1% of Evening News Stories.

    - Gas prices have risen almost $1-a-gallon since the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, yet President Obama's drilling moratorium and other anti-oil policies have barely been mentioned by the networks in that time span.
   
    - Only 1 percent (3 out of 280) of oil price stories since the spill has made any connection between the administration's anti-oil actions and the jump in gasoline prices.

As food prices take a huge bite out of people’s paychecks, the establishment tells the people who are hurting to “get a better job.” We’re being told that inflation is near zero because food and gas are not part of the inflation calculation, just as people are taking out loans to fill their gas tank. Meanwhile Obama’s answer is to buy a new car.

The “preference cascade” is not limited to despotic regimes in the Middle East. I can happen anywhere where people suddenly find out that they’re not alone. Once people can talk amongst themselves they find that the people who are in control of the news - the narrative - have been lying to them all their lives. That their views have been overlooked and their concerns have been belittled by people whose claim to the media megaphone is a degree in English from CCBSU (Close Cover Before Striking University) and a moral certainty that their Liberalism is the only acceptable viewpoint.

Part of that revolution occurred last November. The second phase of America’s peaceful revolution takes place in November 2012.