As you may know, The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, Volume 2)
is the classic book written in the early 1940’s by Friedrich Von Hayek that defined the threat imposed by the unchecked growth of central government and the resulting loss of individual freedom and liberty. Bruce Bialosky, in his his October 16, 2010 article, thinks we are headed in that direction. For him, this election will determine whether this nation surrenders to the Washington oligarchy and the media elites or "we the people" reassert the values that have been the shining hallmark of this great country for over 200 years.
is the classic book written in the early 1940’s by Friedrich Von Hayek that defined the threat imposed by the unchecked growth of central government and the resulting loss of individual freedom and liberty. Bruce Bialosky, in his his October 16, 2010 article, thinks we are headed in that direction. For him, this election will determine whether this nation surrenders to the Washington oligarchy and the media elites or "we the people" reassert the values that have been the shining hallmark of this great country for over 200 years.If you have any age on you at all, it seems like every election "is the most important of our lifetime." For Bialosky, this time it is the truth. He even expresses the view that it may be the most critical election in America since 1860. In 2008, the nation elected a President and Congress committed to the wholesale expansion of government and the commensurate reduction in individual freedom. He admits that the people may not have thought that is what they were voting for, but that is what they got. However, any presidential candidate who promises "fundamental transformation" clearly does not like individual freedom, for what is "fundamental" about America is the charter of freedom and protection from an intrusive federal government. For Biolosky, any vote that leaves Congress in the hands of the Pelosi-Reid Democrats endorses that path. But a vote against the Democrats will repudiate their policies of invasive government and limitation of individual choice.
Well, if you are going to motivate change, one has to convince others there is a sense of urgency. At least, that is what John P. Kotter says in his classic work on leadership, Leading Change
. In many ways, I am one person who is committed to politically conservative ideas who would hope that "the people" will listen to this sense of urgency and act upon it, for the defense of individual liberty.
. In many ways, I am one person who is committed to politically conservative ideas who would hope that "the people" will listen to this sense of urgency and act upon it, for the defense of individual liberty. Tom Friedman, columnist for The New York Times, has for years been an intellectual guru for the left. In his September 28th column, he wrote:
“Leadership today is about how the U.S. government attracts and educates more of that talent and then enacts the laws, regulations and budgets that empower that talent to take its products and services to scale, sell them around the world – and create jobs here in the process.”
Biolosky points out there is almost no consideration of the individual in this statement, and yet it is the fundamental basis of what they believe – that government is the central point of any job creation.
Personally, I think the media and the Democrat Party need to receive a clear message from "we the people" in this election. The caveat I would offer is that as a political conservative, I am not enthused about the Republican Party. At this point, what I see is that the Republican Party will only slow down the road to serfdom, but they will not have the courage to stop it and start down another path, the road to liberty.
Here is a comment from a friend on facebook:
ReplyDeleteI find it hard to believe that either party is more representative than the other of a "Washington oligarchy". For me this is especially true as I consider the massive amounts of money being raised by old fashioned oligarchs like Rove and Melmann. This is not to say that the GOP is more representative of the "Washington oligarchy" but I do mean to suggest that neither party has by any means the ability to state that it represents the truest principles of our Republic.
To frame the current election as a contest between freedom and tyranny is simply disengenuous and only serves to dehumanize partisans of different political views.
To return to Rove and Melmann, I believe they love their country just as I do, just as Barack Obama does. While I think some policies they promote are unconstitutional or immoral I do not believe them to be tyrants, immoral persons, or anything else of a similar ilk.
I believe deeply in our political discourse involving discussionswa of morality. Yet, I also deeply believe that the debate itself must be a moral one- a debate in which we demonstrate a love for our fellow countrymen that we claim to have for the country. In this case both sides have failed.
Another facebook comment:
ReplyDeleteI think we need to heal our national political wounds, we need acceptance rather than simply being tolerant, and to move beyond minimal cooperation to collaboration.
Neither party has the corner on good or evil...but perhaps, to have a rational conversation, we need to list and classify issues by the degree of evil they bring to the table.
Another facebook comment:
ReplyDeleteMy internal language of politics is one of being a dance...not warfare. Sometimes one side leads, sometimes the other. In the end it is a cooperative venture if it is to suceed. I don't get my knickers in a knot about any particular election...& would be very careful singling out "this one" as the one of a lifetime. Extremism & fear mongering--things we don't need to add to the hysteria.
I responded:
ReplyDeleteI appreciate of the comments. I think what each of you miss is that Obama himself said he wanted to be a transformational president. He has been so successfully. I do not think it debatable that the charter that started America is individual liberty and limiting the powers of government to encroach upon that freedom. I will say that the blog post assumed knowledge of what Hayek meant by "tyranny." He did not mean the type of tyranny imposed by a Muslim Sharia, a typical military dictatorship, or a communist government. What he did mean is the "soft tyranny" of which de Tocqueville wrote at the close of Democracy in America, and of which Ayn Rand wrote in Atlas Shrugged. With the votes of "the people," individual freedom is taken away "for the common good." In that sense, as increasingly more of our private property is taken in the form of taxes (income, sales, user fees, regulation, ....) we become "serfs," working for the "common good" as expressed by the federal government. Of course, the point of this analysis is that eventually, when we no longer value private initiative and creativity and its rewards, the entire economy will collapse, but that is another story. However, I think parts of Europe have already shown that if you take away the consequences, good or bad, of private behavior, you will harm the total economy.
Glen, I find it interesting that you are willing to point to Rove and Mellon, but do not mention that far greater funds plowed into the Democrat Party by the Labor Unions. In addition, George Soros on his own could put in more money than Rove could raise. Your own partisanship is showing.
As to Washington Oligarchy, I agree that both political parties have strong elements of it. I trust you noticed the end of the blog. In any case, I think one reason Republicans will likely increase by about 50 votes in the House and 8 or 9 in the Senate, and not more, is that many people justly skeptical of the Republican Party, which in the first six years of this millennia government as a slightly less liberal government than the Democrat Party, and got the nation into two wars and nation building.
I responded:
ReplyDeleteI appreciate of the comments. I think what each of you miss is that Obama himself said he wanted to be a transformational president. He has been so successfully. I do not think it debatable that the charter that started America is individual liberty and limiting the powers of government to encroach upon that freedom. I will say that the blog post assumed knowledge of what Hayek meant by "tyranny." He did not mean the type of tyranny imposed by a Muslim Sharia, a typical military dictatorship, or a communist government. What he did mean is the "soft tyranny" of which de Tocqueville wrote at the close of Democracy in America, and of which Ayn Rand wrote in Atlas Shrugged. With the votes of "the people," individual freedom is taken away "for the common good." In that sense, as increasingly more of our private property is taken in the form of taxes (income, sales, user fees, regulation, ....) we become "serfs," working for the "common good" as expressed by the federal government. Of course, the point of this analysis is that eventually, when we no longer value private initiative and creativity and its rewards, the entire economy will collapse, but that is another story. However, I think parts of Europe have already shown that if you take away the consequences, good or bad, of private behavior, you will harm the total economy.
I also responded to Glen:
ReplyDeleteGlen, I find it interesting that you are willing to point to Rove and Mellon, but do not mention that far greater funds plowed into the Democrat Party by the Labor Unions. In addition, George Soros on his own could put in more money than Rove could raise. Your own partisanship is showing.
As to Washington Oligarchy, I agree that both political parties have strong elements of it. I trust you noticed the end of the blog. In any case, I think one reason Republicans will likely increase by about 50 votes in the House and 8 or 9 in the Senate, and not more, is that many people justly skeptical of the Republican Party, which in the first six years of this millennia government as a slightly less liberal government than the Democrat Party, and got the nation into two wars and nation building.
Glen, who wrote the first comment, said:
ReplyDeleteI am not a big believer in the ability of individuals to be perfectly objective... so I probably was betraying my own bias with the coment above. Yet, again, my intent was simply to demonstrate that both parties have their oligarchs- I felt you had already demonstrated this abley in regard to Democrats.
Also, I appreciate your defining tyranny- yet I am concerned that in the video clips I have seen of Sharon Angle or Rand Paul or others that their definition- if it is the same- is not perceived by their audiences as being the same tyranny that you describe. I guess I think that tyranny- no matter how its used- is a loaded word. I think this is what underlies my above arguement.
I responded:
ReplyDeleteGlenn, I appreciate your comments. I have not seen the political ads you mention. I would point out that I did not define "Washington oligarchy" by money and who contributes to the party's. That is Bialosky's word for what I have usually defined as the political class, which includes politicians and much of the "mainline" media, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, as well as such Internet outlets as Huffington Post and Media Matters. Mainline Protestant churches have become an important part of this steady concentration of authority and wealth to Washington DC. As I suggested, the Republican Party is only slowing this "tyranny," to use a loaded word, but I think a word that truly states the end result of this process. I would offer that the blog is actually more even-handed in criticism of the two parties than your lost post suggest.
A friend, Bill, emailed me this comment:
ReplyDeleteAs illiterate as I am polically I agree with both positions as I understand them. I agree about where the Demos are leading us and the the Republican Party has little more to offer than to slow down the processs while at the same time sending an important message to the Democrats.