April 24, 2009
Fundamental Question
In what looks like six years of blogging (making me rich and famous as I'd planned all along) I think I may have come to the fundamental liberty discussion question. I'd appreciate any ThreeSourcers' indulging me with a comment.
I wanted to post about Randy Barnett's Federalism Amendment. It is right up our street of beliefs and concerns around here and it deserves to be discussed alone outside the context of this post. Sadly, I dismissed it casually, as I did blog brother JG's trenchant posts about possible flaws in the liberty-sapping 16th Amendment. Both Barnett and JG make valid points how Americans could reassert control of the government and re-establish the lamp of liberty. Isn't that all we talk about? Why discard two blueprints for achieving our goals?
I have lost the faith -- not in liberty but in the electorate's appreciation of it. Maybe I lived in Boulder County too long, but when I step away from ThreeSources, I find little yearning for freedom. My Facebook friends routinely post collectivist nonsense ("How about a candlelight evening once a week after Earth Day?" -- umm, how about "old people and sick children freeze in the dark day," oh sis-in-lawr?) My sister, who has probably never voted for a Democrat for President in her life is convinced the USDA is the only reason grocery chains don't sell tainted meat.
I don't see that the system can be fixed electorally because the electorate is in full bread and circuses mode (Panem et circenses as Brother Keith says). Maybe we could educate some on the ideas and ideals of liberty -- but the collectivists own the schools, media, and entertainment industries.
Sorry for the lack of optimism. I'll still fight at the margins to retain health care and as much of the energy sector as we can maintain. But I cannot see reversing collectivism electorally without the desire.
Posted by John Kranz at April 24, 2009 11:28 AM
I share your sentiments that it will not be solved by the electorate, at least not in the short term. My finger-in-the-wind calculation is that 40% of the population favors collectivism and 25-30% favor American-style liberty. The group in the middle are not ideologically inclined and vote based on mood of the moment. Mathematically, however, that gives our side and uphill battle in every election. When in power, Dems move the marker 12 inches to the left. When Republicans are in power, they move the marker 3 inches to the right. The result of the game is less in doubt than the time.
Favoring liberty requires that you think and take responsibility for your screw-ups. If your twilight years are spent eating Ramen and working odd jobs, it's easier to ask for government assistance than accept that you didn't save enough and have no one else to blame. It's much easier to just drift through life accepting what others dictate and simply demand more.
I view socialism as a disease as much as alcoholism. It's progress and addictive. Moreover, addicts usually must hit "rock bottom" before they make the changes necessary to begin the recovery process. Europe is probably 25 years from rock bottom, when they simply cannot sustain the level of spending that the people demand. That's no guarantee of the road to recovery, but it will be a cataclysmic event. The US is about 20 years behind, but closing the gap rapidly.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at April 24, 2009 12:57 PMI believe that liberty, or freedom, is an innately human desire. If this is true then the portion of the electorate that favors collectivism doesn't understand how it is a threat to their freedom. The portion of eligible voters who don't vote certainly doesn't understand this.
Consider this parable about catching wild pigs as an explanation of how innately free humans can willingly surrender their liberty. In the end, they don't actually realize that they are being held captive. That epiphany will come to each of them in time, but not all at once. This is why the audacity of President Historical and his accolytes in congress is a boon to liberty - more Americans will have the epiphany more quickly, and perhaps act to tear down some fences. Or at least stop voting for the government corn.
And yet, I think we do the collectivists a favor when we concede defeat in any arena. Speak out when you hear people espouse collectivist ideas in public, even if it's just to say "I disagree." Become active in your local school board. Write letters to the editor and call your elected officials to tell them what you think. And here's a bigger one -
I'd like to see some reform of the redistricting process. To allow politicians to gerrymander the districts that keep them in power is unhealthy. A simple but meaningful reform could be to require all statewide political districts to be formed only from whole counties. No more piecemealing slivers of inner-city populations with suburban or rural ones to give large urban areas undue influence over our national discourse. If Democrats want to represent rural areas then let them adopt rural values. Perhaps someone familiar with redistricting laws can tell my why this can or can not be done.
Posted by: johngalt at April 26, 2009 2:59 PM | What do you think? [2]