Road to Serfdom and the 2010 Midterm Election

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.

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. 

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. 

Pondering the Commerce Clause and Obamacare

In 2005, the Supreme Court said the federal government's power to "regulate commerce ... among the several states" extends to the tiniest speck of marijuana wherever it may be found, even in the home of a patient who grows it for her own medical use in compliance with state law. "If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause," Justice Clarence Thomas warned in his dissent, "then it can regulate virtually anything -- and the federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."

The Obama administration, according to Jacob Sullum (October 20, 2010 article), was in court this week defending the new federal requirement that every American obtain government-designed health insurance, seems determined to prove Thomas right. But despite seven decades of stretching by a Supreme Court eager to accommodate every congressional whim, the Amazing Elastic Commerce Clause is still not expansive enough, according to Sullum, to cover the unprecedented command that people purchase a product from a private company in exchange for the privilege of existing.

"Never before has the Commerce Clause ... been extended this far," noted U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson when he declined to dismiss the case he heard this week, in which Virginia is challenging the insurance mandate. Last week, allowing a similar lawsuit by Florida, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson agreed that the Commerce Clause has "never been applied in such a manner before."

That's saying a lot, because the Commerce Clause has been used to justify some audacious assertions of federal power, under the theory that it covers not just interstate commerce but "activities that substantially affect interstate commerce."

In 1942, the Supreme Court said a farmer could be penalized for violating federal crop regulations by growing wheat for his own consumption because he thereby reduced demand in the interstate wheat market. The 2005 medical marijuana case extended this reasoning to a federally proscribed commodity grown by people who were not even farmers. In 1964, the Court held that businesses made themselves subject to a federal ban on racial discrimination by purchasing supplies that originated in other states.

But as Vinson noted, all of these cases at least "involved activities in which the plaintiffs had chosen to engage." By contrast, the insurance mandate is "based solely on citizenship and on being alive."

U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh, who this month dismissed the Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center's challenge to the insurance requirement, disagrees. Conceding that every case in which the Supreme Court has upheld a law under the Commerce Clause has involved "some sort of activity" and "an economic or commercial component," Steeh tried hard to find those elements in a law that punishes people for something that is neither economic nor an activity.

This was the best he could do: "Far from 'inactivity,' by choosing to forgo insurance plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now through the purchase of insurance. ... These decisions, viewed in the aggregate, have clear and direct impacts on health care providers, taxpayers and the insured population who ultimately pay for the care provided to those who go without insurance."

Although Steeh claimed "the health care market is unlike other markets" because people "cannot opt out," his logic is easily adaptable. People who abstain from purchasing a car are making an economic decision to use other modes of transportation, and that choice has an impact on the U.S. automobile industry, which the federal government is committed to saving. People who do not eat vegetables are making an economic decision to consume other foods, and that choice affects the market for health care services as well as interstate commerce in broccoli. As Hudson observed on Monday, the possibilities are "boundless."

Worse, for Sullum, Steeh's emphasis on "cost-shifting" by people who make poor economic decisions suggests a federal government with the authority to override myriad heretofore private choices, including decisions about education, employment, housing, savings, investment and purchases of all kinds. Try opting out of that.

Pondering Obama's Views of his Opponents

President Obama, speaking at a fundraiser in Boston, said:

 "People out there are still hurting very badly, and they are still scared. And so part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared. And the country is scared, and they have good reason to be."

Mona Charen, in her October 19, 2010, points out that if the people of the United States are losing confidence in President Obama, he wants it clearly understood that he is losing confidence in them as well. If they are considering voting for candidates Obama disapproves, it is because fear has paralyzed their capacity for reasoned judgment.

The reasoning of the President, as always, is that one could not possibly disagree with him and still be rational. One must be afraid, or, in another context, angry. If philosopher Merleau-ponty is correct in saying that feelings are thoughts that do not yet have words, then even the feelings of anger and fear come from a thinking place of the mind. As Charen points out, voters gave Mr. Obama a chance and are now holding him accountable for his failures. Doing so is a rational, even if fearful and angry, response to what Obama has actually has done: sponsor government take over of health care industry, punish producers, expand national debt and deficit, and increase unemployment. 

My own hope is that my fellow citizens will deepen their respect for the founding of this nation and its fundamental principles, but that is for another time. 

The pseudoscientific fraud of global warming/climate change

Here is a news item that I have been following lately, because it involves yet another doubt about the whole notion of "scientific consensus" as it relates to global warming/climate change. You can read the full letter here. I have written an article on Jurgen Moltmann that discusses his theology as it relates to his presumption of an ecological crisis, which you can here. I have some book recommendations at the close of this article.


Professor Harold Lewis's resignation from the American Physical Society after 70 years of membership over the organization's participation in the "global warming scam" is just the most recent show of disgust by principled scientists about promotion of pseudo-climate science for personal gain, according to National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) Senior Fellow H. Sterling Burnett.

"This is just one more brick crumbling in the edifice of catastrophic global warming," Dr. Burnett said. "Harold Lewis joins a growing cadre of principled scientists who refuse to continue the scientific charade of catastrophic global warming."

"It is...the global warming scam with the trillions of dollars driving it that has corrupted so many scientists... It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist," Lewis said in his resignation.

By resigning, Lewis joins other principled scientists such as Chris Landsea, Claude Allegre and others who have argued that the evidence for catastrophic climate change was weak and could not justify costly, precipitous action to avert global warming.

"Lewis's resignation is just one more alarm about the folly of the pseudo-science behind global warming and catastrophic climate change," Burnett continued, "and we need to answer responsibly by reexamining the data and applying sound science, as other honest researchers have. Too many questions remain."


Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate


Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, Updated and Expanded Edition

Pondering Environmental Extremism and the 10.10 campaign

Leading environmental organizations in Britain, with the backing of numerous major corporations, recruited British screenwriter Richard Curtis to produce a video for the "10:10" campaign, which seeks to cut carbon emissions by 10 percent every year for 10 years. The video begins in a classroom, where a mild-mannered teacher tells her middle-school students about the 10:10 effort. She then asks the class if they'd like to sign up. Most do, but two kids abstain. The teacher tells them, "That's absolutely fine, your own choice." Then, she reaches for a device on her desk with a red button on it. She pushes the button, and the kids who refused to sign up for the green crusade are blown up, their blood and viscera spraying across the classroom, staining the school uniforms of their conformist and compliant classmates. The same "joke" plays out several more times in different settings (an office, soccer practice, etc.). Each time someone resists the idea of getting with the program, the response is swift, bloody execution. 


The video's defenders argue it's all a big joke, lighten up. For the layman, the obvious response is, "That's not true." Blowing up kids isn't funny. As Jonah Goldberg points (October 8, 2010), that misses the point. This is not a joke for the benefit of conservatives. No, this is a knee-slapper for those already committed to the cause. The subtext is, "Wouldn't it be awesome if we could just get rid of these tiresome, inconvenient people?" That's why they're blown up without anyone trying to change their minds. That's the joke: "Enough with these idiots already."


Apparently, this is what passes for reasonable discourse. Let us kill our opponents. It appears that Islamic militants do not have a corner on the desire to violence to those who disagree with them.


Such tyrannical tactics are not unique to this film or to Britain Environmental extremists. Jonah Golberg offers several examples. 


A couple years ago, a British power company joined the green bandwagon by launching a "Climate Cops" program that encouraged children to keep dossiers on their parents and neighbors, recording their "climate crimes." 


Frustrated with the perceived environmental threat of economic freedom and the inconvenience of political freedom, many environmentalists yearn for shortcuts. 


New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wishes we could learn from China's one-party system. In books such as "The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy," environmentalists insist that democracy needs to be replaced with a more authoritarian system. 


NASA scientist James Hansen wants to put corporate CEOs on trial for crimes against humanity. 


Al Gore compares his opponents to Holocaust deniers and insists that the time for democratic debate is over. 


Some environmentalists have almost as little regard for human life as the fictional teacher in the 10:10 video. When Charles Wurster, chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, was told that banning DDT would probably result in millions of deaths, he replied, "This is as good a way to get rid of them as any." 


Finnish environmental guru Pentti Linkola argues that the earth is a sinking ship, and the greens must head for the lifeboats: "Those who hate life try to pull more people on board and drown everybody. Those who love and respect life use axes to chop off the extra hands hanging on the gunwale." 


The point is, words and images mean things. Let us just hope Shakespeare In King Lear, Act 5, Scene 3 was wrong when he said, "Jesters do oft prove prophets."

War Between America and Islam? Questioning Islamophobia Again

I have made it clear in other notes that I think we need some honesty about the intentions of global Islam. It seems that this encouragement seems to be received by some that I am part of the "hate Islam" crowd. I am note sure where that crowd is, but I have no desire to be part of it. G. K. Chesterton wrote in his biography of St. Francis that he went to Syria, determining that it was better to make converts out of Muslims than to conquer them. I share that sentiment. They need the good news of Jesus Christ. They need to replace their love for the Quran with a love for the Bible. They need to move from their Allah to the Triune God. Is this offensive? I would think that any Christian would agree.

Steve Chapman, in his September 26, 2010 article, says that there is no question that feelings on both sides are running higher than usual. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, says the Pew Research Center, 59 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Islam, but today, the figure is 30 percent. A spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations blamed the recent slashing of a Muslim cab driver in New York on "hate rhetoric."    

But all these events get attention for the same reason that airplane crashes get attention: They are unusual. Considering the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and considering the U.S. invasion of two Islamic countries, for Chapman, the surprise is not that feelings between Muslims and non-Muslims in this country are so bitter and angry. It's that they are so amicable. 

He points out that the "ground zero mosque" has elicited a great deal of opposition -- but, for the most part, restrained opposition. A Fox News poll found that while 64 percent of Americans do not want the facility at that location, 61 percent -- including most Republicans -- say the group has the right to build it there.     

Chapman says that most people don't perceive all Muslims as a lurking danger. Asked whether Islam is more likely than other religions "to encourage violence," 35 percent of Americans said yes -- but 42 percent said no. 

Further, the American Muslim community is not a seething swamp of violent militancy. There are estimated to be at least 1.3 million Muslims in this country -- plenty to furnish an unending stream of suicide bombers, if the motivation existed. But it doesn't. If there is anything striking about the home front of the global war on terrorism, it's the extreme rarity of domestic jihadists. A 2007 survey by Pew found that only 5 percent have a favorable view of al-Qaida -- a number that drops to 3 percent among foreign-born Muslims. Far from praying daily for the rise of Islamic extremism, 61 percent said they were worried about it. Mr. Chapman does not mention it, but I wonder about the other 39 percent. That would about 507,000 Muslims have no concern about the rise of extremism. Although the reason for lack of concern may be benign, it still puzzles me. 

Chapman goes on to point out that unlike the alienated Muslim populations of Europe, American Muslims do not feel estranged from society. "Most say their communities are excellent or good places to live," Pew discovered. Most also believe women are better off in the United States than in Muslim countries.

 
Their overall satisfaction with the state of the country is no different, according to Pew, from the overall satisfaction of everyone else. They do not sound like a violent cult plotting to impose Taliban-style Shariah law on the infidels who surround them. They sound strangely like ... Americans. Which is what they are. For the most part, Muslims have achieved integration and acceptance. Only a quarter of them say they have ever suffered discrimination. Most have many non-Muslim friends.

Chapman suggests that these statistics may be the result of the fact that non-Muslims do not regard them with fear and loathing. Hate crimes against Muslims do not support the charge that Americans are frothing Islamophobes. In 2008, there were only 105 anti-Muslim incidents, compared with 1,013 against Jews.

 
What we see in action here is the powerful influence of deeply rooted ideas about assimilation, tolerance and freedom. Americans generally see Muslims as just one more ingredient in the national melting pot. Muslims mostly identify with our way of life.

 
The tensions and conflicts in evidence in our public debates do exist, but they give a misleading picture of modern American society. The reality is the one proclaimed by the Founders: E pluribus unum. Out of many, one. 

Pondering Economics: Peasant Mentality

Victor Davis Hanson, in his article of September 24, 2010, has written what I think is an excellent article concerning economic life. He entitled the article "A Nation of Peasants?" He begins by saying that traditional peasant societies believe in only a limited good. The more your neighbor earns, the less someone else gets. Profits are seen as a sort of theft. They must be either hidden or redistributed. Envy rather than admiration of success reigns. In contrast, Western civilization began with a very different ancient Greek idea of an autonomous citizen, not an indentured serf or subsistence peasant. The small, independent landowner -- if left to his own talents and if his success was protected by, and from, government -- would create new sources of wealth for everyone. The resulting greater bounty for the poor soon trumped their old jealousy of the better off. Citizens of ancient Greece and Italy soon proved more prosperous and free than either the tribal folk to the north and west, or the imperial subjects to the south and east. The success of later Western civilization in general, and America in particular, is testament to this legacy of the freedom of the individual in the widest political and economic sense.

He goes on to say that the political class and the citizens are forgetting these basic truths lately, though Mao Zedong's redistributive failures in China, or present-day bankrupt Greece, should warn us about what happens when government tries to enforce an equality of result rather than of opportunity.

Even after the failure of statism at the end of the Cold War, the disasters of socialism in Venezuela and Cuba, and the recent financial meltdowns in the European Union, for some reason America is returning to a peasant mentality of a limited good that redistributes wealth rather than creates it. Candidate Obama's "spread the wealth" slip to Joe the Plumber simply was upgraded to President Obama's "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money."

The more his administration castigates insurers, businesses and doctors; raises taxes on the upper income brackets; and creates more regulations, the more those who create wealth are sitting out, neither hiring nor lending. The result is that traditional self-interested profit-makers are locking up trillions of dollars in unspent cash rather than using it to take risks and either lose money due to new red tape or see much of their profit largely confiscated through higher taxes.

No wonder that in such a climate of fear and suspicion, unemployment remains near 10 percent. Deficits chronically exceed $1 trillion per annum. And now the poverty rate has hit a historic high. We are all getting poorer in hopes that a few don't get richer.

The public is seldom told that 1 percent of taxpayers already pay 40 percent of the income taxes collected, while 40 percent of income earners are exempt from federal income tax -- or that present entitlements like Medicare and Social Security are financially unsustainable. Instead, they hear more often that those who managed to scheme to make above $250,000 per year have obligations to the rest of us to give back about 60 percent of what they earn in higher health care and income taxes -- together with payroll and rising state income taxes, and along with increased capital gains and inheritance taxes.

That limited-good mind-set expects that businesses will agree that they now make enough money and so have no need to pursue any more profits at the expense of others. Therefore, they will gladly still hire the unemployed and buy new equipment -- as they pay higher health care or income taxes to a government that knows far better how to redistribute their income to the more needy or deserving.

This peasant approach to commerce also assumes that businesses either cannot understand administration signals or can do nothing about them. So who cares that in the Chrysler bankruptcy settlement, quite arbitrarily the government put the unions in front of the legally entitled lenders?

Health insurers should not mind that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius just warned them to keep their profits down and their mouths shut -- or face exclusion from health care markets.

I suppose that no corporation should worry that the government arbitrarily announced -- without benefit a law or court ruling -- that it wanted BP to put up $20 billion in cleanup costs for the Gulf spill.

What optimistic Americans used to call a rising tide that lifts all boats is now once again derided as trickle-down economics. In other words, a newly peasant-minded America is willing to become collectively poorer so that some will not become wealthier.

The present economy suggests that it is surely getting its wish.

Here are some other books by this author:

How The Obama Administration Threatens Our National Security (Encounter Broadsides)