Big Jolly Politics

politics in Harris County and Texas

Individualism v. Community: The false debate at the core of this election

by

I’ll return to my series on Texas Education soon, but I want to share some thoughts after digesting the rhetoric from both national political conventions. 

My first and over-riding thought was how baffled Adam Smith and William Jennings Bryan would be if they had somehow been able to return to this world for the last two weeks and had attended these conventions.  Neither would understand the split that has occurred in American politics over issues they studied and championed, and both would be shocked at how misunderstood and misapplied their ideas have become.

Smith, the Scottish professor of Moral Philosophy, built his ideas about economics and government in his Wealth of Nations on the foundation of his description of the inherent moral nature of man in The Theory of Moral Sentiments.  For the last 250 years, both proponents and opponents of the system of capitalism and free markets that evolved from Smith’s writings based their viewpoints on an analysis of economic behavior that was independent of the morality so central to Smith’s theories.  Smith would not have understood either Marx or Rand.  To him, the individual pursuing his or her self-interest did so within a context of morality and responsibility.  Smith’s total view, in turn, was consistent with the type of system that developed during the 18th and 19th Centuries in the United States—the one de Tocqueville observed and explained in his Democracy In America. 

But today, we are more the children of Marx and Rand, than of Smith.  So, we see the answers to our problems solely through the lens of rugged individualism, or social-justice collectivism, when both individualism and community are needed for a society of free people to thrive using capitalism and free markets.  In essence, our misreading of Smith has set up a false choice between individualism and community that de Tocqueville believed we had avoided.

As a self-proclaimed answer to this false choice, William Jennings Bryan emerged as a political force of nature in the 1890s.  Arguably, as one of the early proponents of a form of Progressivism, he was the most influential politician from the 1890s to the 1920s who never became President—though he tried four times.  He set out to impose community on rugged individualists through his “applied Christianity,” which was derisively called “Bryanism.”   Bryanism called for the federal government to become the source of social justice through interventionist and redistributionist economic policies, and by enforcing a common standard for public and private moral behavior.  Between the 1930s and the 1960s, the Democratic Party abandoned the social conservatism of Bryanism, while fully embracing the economic portion of his social justice views. 

Meanwhile, in the late 1970s, the social-conservative heirs to the morality of Bryanism turned to the Republican Party to promote their agenda, and they joined economic conservatives to support Ronald Reagan’s “New Republican Party” plan to re-establish a modern society upon the Smith/de Tocqueville model of society.  In fact, what Reagan understood was that the real choice for sustaining and improving our free society is not between individualism and community, but between the role of individual morality and responsibility and government regulations and programs in creating and maintaining community among free people.  The Smith/de Tocqueville model that Reagan tried to reinvigorate provided the right answer for that real choice.

But instead of disappearing into history, the remnants of Bryanism are alive and well.  They are divided into two warring camps still trying to resolve the false choice between individualism and community with wrong or incomplete answers that depend on the exercise of federal government action, and that create strange fissures within both Progressivism and Conservatism in this country.   

President Obama’s acceptance speech doubled-down on the economic social-justice model of Bryanism.  He recognized that our society is built on both the freedom of the individual and the interdependence of communities, but he embraced the false choice between the two.  Then, he sought to answer the false choice by providing community artificially through more government interventions, while rejecting any role for private, individual, moral character and responsibility in shaping and preserving a community.  Such an approach provides a wrong answer to the false choice, which will worsen all of the social pathologies that have arisen over the last century, and further isolate neighbors as autonomous wards of one or more federal government programs.

Where are the Republicans in this debate?  Unfortunately, we are still arguing between the social conservatism of Bryanism and the economic conservatism of traditional and libertarian Republicans, when Smith, de Tocqueville and Reagan would have told us the choice we are arguing about is false, too.  Both are needed for our model of government to work, and we need to stop fighting among ourselves over this fundamental point.

Instead, we need to come together and seize the opportunity we’ve been given to change the debate in this election.  By shaping the debate around “community” and the social-justice model, Obama has handed us a rare opportunity to break out of the old paradigms and to reveal the false choice between individualism and community that we have been given over the last century.  As we reveal the false choice, we must argue for our Smith/de Tocqueville/Reagan model of a free society and government—an argument we have not made coherently for at least a generation because of our own internal arguments.  We need to take the “You did build that” theme, and expand on it with our ageless ideas of creating and maintaining “community” through individual, private, and local action; by showing that the individualism of moral people creates community among neighbors, and that such communities are protected and promoted by local private and public entities, rather than by a federal bureaucracy. 

All of the groups we need to persuade to vote for our ticket need to hear the falsity of the choice and answer the Democrats have long promoted, and hear the real argument for the Smith/de Tocqueville/Reagan model that made us exceptional:  Latinos and other new immigrant groups who have come to this country to build a better life; African-Americans who have been abandoned to under-education, under-employment and over-incarceration; and women and young people, whose prosperity depends on the economic growth and support that strong neighborhoods provide. 

Unless some whiz kid around Romney and Ryan figures out how to make this argument effectively, Obama’s argument will win by default because the false choice has become engrained in our national thinking, and the mood of the country is looking for answers.  They’ll embrace even wrong answers to false choices if we don’t show them the choice is false and the answer is wrong, and what is really the right path.  We won’t just win this election by doubling-down on social conservatism or rugged individualism, nor do I now think we can limp into the election just focusing on jobs, the budget and government reform.  Instead, we need to show why our answers to jobs, the budget and government reform will improve the condition of this country, and to do that we need to address the interrelationship between basic morality, individualism, and strong communities for the success of our model of society and economic growth—an interrelationship that our founders, Smith and de Tocqueville understood and promoted.  Then, we need to challenge our neighbors to rebuild this model of society with us.

If Romney articulates the Smith/de Tocqueville/Reagan model effectively, shows why it is relevant to the problems we face, shows how it can work, shows how it will improve lives in the 21st Century, and challenges us to embrace it, he’ll win in a landslide.  If not, the public may decide to let their money ride on the wrong bet they made four years ago.

Doug Weiskopf: A modest proposal

by

Doug Weiskopf

As Congress argues over extending the Bush tax cuts across the board, once again Republicans–especially the Republican leadership in Congress– are proving themselves to be poor politicians, stupidly allowing themselves to be backed into a corner and characterized as “protecting the rich.”   In fact, the Bush tax cuts benefited those in the lower incomes much more than the wealthiest.  But Obama and Congressional Democrats are using this issue to hurt Republican chances in November, and distract the electorate from their abysmal record.  The important issue here is defeating Obama, increasing our majority in the House and gaining control of the Senate.  Then we will be able to radically simplify the tax code and reduce rates for all taxpayers, allowing a free economy to grow, and free workers to earn a good reward for their skills!

To that end, I would like to offer a few suggestions:

Extend the “Bush Tax Cuts,” including the 15{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} rate for dividend and long-term capital gain income, the standard deduction for married couples and the $1,000 child tax credit, for everyone earning less than $379,151, permanently.  This keeps rates low for all but the top bracket, taking that issue off the table for Obama, and encourages Congress to come back next year and begin true tax relief and simplification.

Reduce the threshold for deductible medical expenses to 3{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of adjusted gross income.  This provides real help in meeting real medical expenses for the middle class, giving the people more power over their own health care, while helping protect the average family from rising expenses.

Restore the 2{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} cut in the Payroll Tax, which is robbing from Social Security, and replace it with an additional permanent Income Tax reduction of 2{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} across the board, and 4{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} for the self-employed.  Allowing Obama to cut payroll taxes was one of the stupidest things we could have done because it robbed even more from the already over-burdened Social Security Trust Fund.  This corrects that mistake, but protects working Americans–including many small business owners– from another tax hike!

Permanently increase the Social Security Payroll Tax Rate for all employees who are not United State citizens by a total of 5{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986},  and Medicare (FICA) Tax rate by 2{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} .  This is a “win/win” idea borrowed from Norm Adams.  It immediately provides increased revenue to Social Security and Medicare, and provides a strong incentive for hiring U. S. citizens.

Begin phasing out the Earned Income Tax Credit by reducing it by 2{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} each year until it is eliminated.  This is another poorly thought out, and misleading “entitlement” that suppresses ambition and underwrites low wages.  It promotes unhealthy dependence on “the government” and should be replaced by better job opportunities.

Doug Weiskopf is the Republican Candidate for Texas House District 143.

 

The Fist of the Obama Administration Must Not be Re-Elected

by

Ed Hubbard

My father liked to tinker with writing simple poetry—the type of “greeting card” poetry that can be very touching or funny, or simply lame.  I recently have been reminded of the following part of a funny poem he wrote for me when I graduated from law school, which he entitled “Lawyer to Client”:

 

You say you hit the other guy,
Broke his nose and blackened his eye,
Split his lip and damaged his face.
I think you’ve got an excellent case.

The man is daft and obviously
Was in a place he never should be.
With devious means and grievous twist
He put his face in front of your fist. …

As I’ve followed the debate over the “Obama mandate” for insurance coverage that narrows the conscience exception that had protected religious institutions for many years, I feel as though we conservatives have once again put our face in front of the left’s fist on this issue.  Normally, I would advocate just licking our wounds and changing the subject back to the economic issues facing the country.  But, the problem is that what underlies the thinking of the left on this issue is what also is strangling the long-term neck of our economy.

Before we go further with that point, we first need to understand how our face found its way into the left’s fist. Back in January (it seems like years ago), during one of the many GOP debates over the last few months, George Stephanopoulos asked the candidates about their view of a half-century old Supreme Court ruling that constitutionally prohibited states from banning the sale or use of contraceptives.  Virtually everyone on the stage, and in the auditorium, was shocked by the question because it seemed to come out of left field.  The candidates all answered in one way or another that the issue was irrelevant and no one is advocating banning contraceptives, and Stephanopoulos looked really silly and petty as he continued to press for an answer from the candidates—but the key is that he continued to press for an answer.  Why?  It made no sense—at the time.

Then, not long after that debate, Secretary Sebelius announced that the Obama Administration would mandate that all employers would have to provide contraceptive coverage as part of their insurance plans, including religiously-affiliated hospitals, schools, and charities.  The “conscience exception” that had previously exempted such institutions from such mandates was to be narrowed to just the direct employees of the houses of worship of such religious institutions. 

The negative reaction was stunning and swift, but it was not about women’s health or access to contraceptives—which must have further surprised the likes of Stephanopoulos and Sebelius.  Instead, it was about the use of the governmental fist in violation of the First Amendment to force churches to act at variance with their beliefs, or get fined—the type of direct assault on religious liberty that the U.S. Supreme Court had just told the Obama Administration it could not do as the court struck down another attempted regulatory invasion into the operation of a religious school. Hoping to find a compromise, people of goodwill from all over the political spectrum called on the Obama Administration to reconsider and re-embrace the full conscience exception that both political parties previously had honored, and that had provided a federal safe-harbor from mandates at the state level, while exploring other constitutional ways to maximize women’s access to medical treatments and prescriptions.  Instead of such a compromise, Obama announced a unilateral “compromise” with himself, which—of course—was no compromise at all.  It, instead, was a new fiat that was even more extraordinary for its hubris—mandating that insurers pay for, but not charge for, providing contraceptives to employees of religiously-affiliated hospitals, schools and charities.  Incredible!

Why was the second fiat incredible?  Let’s look closer at Obama’s magnanimous act of self-compromise for a moment:

  • it ignores the fact that, in order to take advantage of the historical safe-harbor provided by the federal conscience exception, many religious institutions became self-insured, and those plans cover both the employees of the churches as well as the affiliated entities;
  • it ignores one of the most basic facts of economics—there is no free lunch.  Regardless as to whether we are talking about free-market or government-planned economies, goods and services (including contraceptives, and the doctor visit and prescription needed to obtain the contraceptives) cost money; and, in this instance, those costs will be paid either directly by the employer or self-insurer, by all the insureds of the insurance company (including the religious institutions and their employees) through higher premiums, or by taxpayers through higher taxes or more public debt;
  • it continues to ignore that these religiously-affiliated institutions only exist in order to fulfill the mission of the church in the community, so that they are an important part of the practice of religious faith  by the ministry of the church, regardless of whether the church employs or serves persons of other faiths (or of no faith) in the performance of such practices; and
  • in making all these mistakes, it shows that Obama refuses to acknowledge and abide by the limitations on governmental power, and the exercise of that power, that our Founder’s enshrined in our Constitution, including the preservation of a separate church and the importance of its separate institutional role in our society.

So, the Obama fist came in a second swing toward the face of those of us who still believe in those limitations on government power, and in religious liberty.  But this time, like on so many other occasions over the last two generations, it is our face that was now alleged to be the aggressor, rather than the victim.  Those on the left who initially had called for Obama to re-consider his decision miraculously found this new fiat to be a welcome compromise, and then fell back in line as the lemmings that they are.  And, of course, their fellow travelers in the media lauded the magnanimity and wisdom of Obama’s act of self-compromise, and fell in line, too.  Then, returning full circle to the Stephanopoulos question, they found further criticism of the second swing of Obama’s fist to be a new assault on women’s health by the face of conservatives—an assault so grave that it could not be tolerated.  Unfortunately, some of our candidates and pundits played into this narrative, by allowing themselves to be drawn into debates about specific religious views of contraception, rather than keeping their focus on the fundamental flaws with Obama’s aggressive mandate.  As a result, in the latest twist in this story, the U.S. Senate could not muster the votes to return federal policy to the full conscience exception, and the left walked away from the debate claiming their fist had been assaulted by our face.

I want to be clear about some things.  I am not a Catholic, though I have great respect for the Catholic Church. I am a father of three girls, and I’m a grandfather.  I care very much about the health of my wife and daughters, and their access to the care they believe they need.  Finally, I see no societal, economic or political benefit to, or wisdom in, re-visiting the legal issue of medical privacy related to the sale and use of contraceptives, which was decided a half-century ago.  Contraception should not be, and really never was the issue in this political debate—we must remember that point as we move forward from here.

Now, back to my the point I started to make.  The shear arrogance of a political leader of this nation who would so cavalierly ignore basic economic principles, ignore basic constitutional rights, and ignore the basic limitations of governmental power that allow us to practice our constitutional rights, in order to advance an agenda to regulate by fiat an industry that represents at least 17{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of our economy, and, in the process, create a new entitlement scheme, has not earned our trust and must not be re-elected.  We will never recover our economic vitality as a nation, let alone our full individual freedoms and responsibilities, if we re-elect this arrogance and give it four more years at the helm of our country.

To those of you who are involved in GOP campaigns this year, I remind you of the seriousness of the mission we have this fall, and ask you to keep your focus on that mission and what the real issues are.  Don’t get sidetracked into the left’s narrative—don’t stick your face into the left’s fist.  Simply fight back based on our narrative of liberty, personal responsibility, limited government and economic opportunity.  As Reagan once told us a generation ago, “there is no substitute for victory.”

How’s That Alinsky Thing Workin’ Out for Ya?

by

 

· Continuously high unemployment

· The first ever, credit rating downgrade

· Incoherent, Muslim-pandering domestic and foreign policies

· Astronomical gas prices

· Inflation

· Home devaluation & record foreclosures

· An unstable stock market

· Obscene debt

· Dropping poll numbers

As the Obama presidency disintegrates before our eyes, the would-be dictator stubbornly clings to his socialist ideology, blaming everything but the real culprit. History plainly shows that socialism always ends in failure.  The last two socialist presidents were laughingstock Jimmy Carter, and national disgrace Bill Clinton.  Jimmy Carter remained faithful to his Marxism to the bitter end.  But Clinton, ever the philanderer, saved his presidency between scandals by wisely placing his polling numbers ahead of his leftist desires. One need look only to Europe as the latest example of socialist-bred economic and societal collapse. 

So why can’t the hyper-intelligent (or so we’re told) Barak Obama read the proverbial handwriting the wall?  Perhaps his blindness has something to do with socialism’s real allure: the overwhelming, seductive, and addictive nature of power. In other words, he just can’t help himself.

Those of us who knew a Marxist when we saw one back in 2008, are not surprised by the catastrophe that is Obama.  We also took note of the fact that he was breathtakingly unqualified to be president.  But we were outvoted by people who believed that he would make a great president because he was black, and an excellent speaker.  They wanted to be the first in history to elect a black man president of the United States.  Strangely, nearly all of his supporters don’t know the first thing about history. But they still wanted to make it, and make it they did!  They elected the most radical extremist in our nation’s history, and a particularly dangerous character at that. Maybe they should have thought about what kind of history they wanted to make, before they went about making it. But liberals don’t think, they react.

Even America’s most ardent leftists are beginning to complain publically about BO’s dismal record.  Yet just like him, they can’t let go of that socialist utopia thing that lives on in their fevered imaginations.  Rather than logically facing facts and drawing appropriate conclusions, they do what they always do.  Every time Marxism craters, leftists blame the people in charge of it, telling themselves that it's not the ideology, but the execution that failed . . . and they are turning on poor Barry.  You would think that the downfall of the Soviet Union would have taught them someth–oh yeah-that’s history isn’t it?  If they admit that their ideology is to blame, then they would be admitting that they were wrong, and there’s no such thing as a humble liberal.

When Edmund Burke said “Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it,” he must have had socialists in mind.  They just keep on pushing that same, old, tired Marxist-Leninist bane with all that tried and true race baiting, something-for-nothing class warfare, and fraudulent rhetoric about compassion and fairness.  And folks, they aren’t going away.  If conservatives win in a historical landslide on November 8, 2012, the socialist drones will wake up Wednesday morning and go right back to work. 

Their tenacity is why our newfound vigilance must continue.  America will pay a terrible price for the electoral foolishness of 2008 for many years to come. The outcome of our endeavor to restore the Constitution as the law of the land is anything but certain. If we repeat our history of apathy towards political activism, they will eventually succeed in their malignant bid for power and control.  “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”  Pay the price or lose the liberty.

Jan Shedd
Post Oak Bend, TX
[email protected]
8/20/11