O'Reilly space

ORLY?

Trying to watch Bill O'Reilly's The Factor on FNC is, to put it bluntly, trying.

Where to begin?

Perhaps with the sleaze part of The Factor, you know the Sleaze Factor segment.  It is the part of the show on once or twice a week to decry something objectionable seen or read about amongst the populace.  Normally it is on YouTube or one of the other video sites, but it can also be on local broadcast TV stations, or some 'personal' and 'cute' thing that someone has uploaded unknowing that their value system is very much askew from that of the general population.  Or Bill O'Reilly.

Now before the Sleaze Factor segment airs you get 'teasers' from the clip or clips involved which usually are meant to give an idea of the nature of what they are.  Pretty much SOP, that.  Save there is just one problem with the Sleaze Factor Segment: all of the objectionable material airs in the teasers.

Isn't it lovely that Mr. O'Reilly warns you to get the kids out of the room before the Sleaze Factor segment airs?  Wouldn't it be better to put that warning on before the program and its teasers?

I know, spooky idea that is both logical and consistent.

His staff could also not put the objectionable material into the teasers.

Wow and zer.

The best part is that for people who didn't know that this videos existed, they can now go searching for them not only at the main sites, but look for caches of them elsewhere.  Without any of the blurring or other editing involved.  Loofah is optional.

Then there is Bill O'Reilly doing his best Sarah Connor imitation warning about The Rise of the Machines.  Machines, you see, are EVIL.  Really!  Bill O'Reilly will tell you so and that they lead to the demise of all morals in our culture.  I blame the Waltz, personally, YMMV.  In his latest screed, seen last night, he put together the problems of using Machines to communicate with each other... I'm assuming he is exempting the fax machine, telegraph, record players, wire players, telephone, tape players, radio, television, films which are all brought to you with machines... because they lead to:

1) Social Isolation – That was the knock against TV which The Factor utilizes, so I guess he is now past that part of the blue-nose nay-sayers about how TV will rot your brain, make your eyes bug out, but give you that healthy, pallid complexion. I grew up with that stuff from our social and media elites, trying to pressure Congress to do something about it.  Really, since it wasn't being used for education, it was not living up to its expectations.  Sucks when people get ahold of technology, isn't it?

2) Loss of morals amongst the population and youth – I blame the Waltz.  Bill O'Reilly blames The Machines.  I'm pretty sure ancient Roman Senators blamed taxing decadence... no, wait, they endorsed that!  Mind you the Pool Halls were a den for gangs, thieves, and women of loose morals, back in the day less than 100 years ago.  Aren't blue-nosers just plain quaint?

3) People get caught up in a virtual world – Which means they get to lose all their inhibitions, all their morals, and act like children.  I think that was a Woodrow Wilson idea, BTW, as he had this idea that if there was no one around you (in a desert, say) then you would immediately become a barbarian and lose all civilized ways.  Geez, wasn't that a great thinker, huh?  Be that as it may, these artificial social spaces are the spawn of no good, but are supplied by hardware and software designers.  Online social spaces are, in other words, the Pool Hall on steroids.  No good will ever come of them.

4) All modern social ills – Disrespectful language, coarse politics, upsetting the digestion of the blue-nosed elites, all this is created by The Rise of the Machines.  And here I thought, from reading all the documentation, that this was a problem of human nature since it was seen at the Founding of the Nation, after the Framing, during the first election cycles featuring someone other than George Washington... and seen as far back in history as graffiti at Pompeii and the writings on the walls of the city of builders for the Pharaohs in Egypt.  I bet you the Lascaux Cave Paintings also feature such things, if only we could figure them out since they probably aren't some ceremonial set of paintings about getting a good hunt going, but pointing out that Grunt, over there, is a slacker and a poor caster of darts, and his wife is sleeping around with Lacks Sideburns, who at least sets decent snares.  Dollars to donuts, this is the State of the Human Condition which is not the cause of technology but of Humans.

So, after trudging through the rest of the show we get to the Shameless Self-Promotion Factor segment, in which Bill O'Reilly does just that.  Mind you, you are watching this on one of those dreaded Machines and not having it done in manuscript form.  And during this segment he tells you of all the wonderful things you can get by becoming a Premium Member on his website (run by Machines, and not eco-friendly squirrels) and all the loot you can score so that the profit goes to charity.

But wait, there's more!

In addition to that great stuff you can take part in a townhall hosted on-line by Bill O'Reilly about the state of the Presidential race.

*blink* *blink*

Now that will be hosted on Machines.

Which are EVIL.

They will rot your mind.

And will create a virtual meeting place, which is the source of all modern ills.

Such meeting places will decay your morals.

They will socially isolate you.

*blink* *blink*

*taps screen*

SAY, WHAT?

You can have it one way – that these Machines are EVIL and the source of all ills in society and are to be shunned!  (Just like he said that your cellphone or pager was a hand-grenade during his brand new and extra-asinine Tip of the Day micro-segment full of tooth rotting ideas about using lemon juice in water before a meal and eating gluten free pretzels by a named company (did he get product placement cash for that?) which might be good for the gluten-intolerant but might not be so good for those who can tolerate it.  Put the phone away for the Love of Pete!  You'll kill yourself with it!!)  Or you can say that these are just tools with no inherent moral bias to them one way or another, and that they serve many purposes and that it is up to YOU to put them to good use as you see fit to do so.

What cannot be done is to decry modern computer based telecoms with modern software that creates virtual spaces as the source of all moral turpitude, and then turn around and create a virtual space and meeting place and claim it is good.  The incitement against technology (da MACHINES!!!) by Bill O'Reilly has been categorical for years: No Good Shall Come Of It... but please go to my website and sign up to show you understand this...

Yeah, hand calculators of the digital and glowing red LED form became a bane of teachers and schools when I was growing up to the point they banned them from the chemistry and physics exams.  My handy-dandy log-log-duplex-decitrig slide rule, on the other hand, was fine.  I got many evil looks from those who did not have nor were versed in the old technology that was not deemed a 'calculator'.  But the technology, itself, is neutral and if any of my fellow classmates had bothered to learn for a few weeks even the basics of using the simplest of slide rules, then they would have been prepared for the exams, as well.  The simplistic notion that the technology is to blame for the ills of society instead of not keeping to a set of moral standards which are taught no matter what the medium, is one that is misplaced, and Luddite at its core.  Also Progressive, as Woodrow Wilson saw it, since he preferred an Elite Class to tell what was good and what was not to the uneducated simpletons called the General Public.

Sort of like Bill O'Reilly and his 'there ought to be a law/regulation' for everything, even when all previous laws and/or regulations have failed to solve the problems they set out to solve.  That might tend to indicate that the value of such laws and/or regulations is not only limited, but that they are misplaced entirely and something other than laws and/or regulations might be required as the coercion of authority isn't stopping the problem.  Make no mistake about it, Bill O'Reilly sees himself as a Culture Warrior, but one has to ask oneself:  just what form of culture is it that he is pushing that is more regulated, castigates people for using modern technology, and attributes all social ills to that technology and that people are using it in an unregulated fashion?

While decrying all the problems of society, the solutions he proposes are already being done in the way he suggests (although their form may be not what he likes) and he can learn no lesson from this, save to push the same, tired attitude that isn't working.  If bad bankers and predatory lenders are a problem, putting regulations in place begins a process of shielding those same bankers and lenders from legal proceedings by their customers and puts in place a kinder, gentler, more authoritarian and lenient government in the place of people who feel wronged.  This isn't working.  You can have all the censorship software in the world, the best stuff available, and ideas you want to quash still not only arrive to those who are suffering under such tyranny, but they arrive because they are being stifled since they offer a way out from tyranny... just ask China about that.  Or Saudi Arabia.

At this point in time there is very little of The Factor that I enjoy, save those times Bill gets a sex and hair color change, and changes his name to Laura Ingraham.  Too bad the format of the program is starting to suck like an Electrolux.

And Bill still has only a 1 in 15 chance of getting a tie that matches his suit on any given night.  For all the people at FNC, can't anyone actually tell which colors go together as an outfit?  Or ask Bill if he can do the Einstein Solution for Outfits which is seven of the same outfits, worn once per week?  Yes, they do go to charity or some such, but the show should not be painful to watch even with the sound off.  Please?

The Way Forward - Blue State Reforms

The victory by Gov. Scott Walker (R - WI) last night points a way forward for other Blue State Governors to start reforming Public Employee Union problems with pensions and health care.  It is a multi-step process but the key points are now clearly visible.

First - Stop collecting Union dues for the Union at the State and local level.  The power of the PEUs comes from dues garnered from employees who may not want to be in the Union.  As States have sovereign power outside of those powers vested in the federal government, it can decide with input from its people on how best to ensure that public employees are to be treated.  When WI stopped the government role of dues collector and left it up to voluntary contributions, the number of dues paying teachers, as an example, dropped by 2/3 (Source: Fox News/WSJ 31 MAY 2012):

Wisconsin membership in the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees-the state's second-largest public-sector union after the National Education Association, which represents teachers-fell to 28,745 in February from 62,818 in March 2011, according to a person who has viewed Afscme's figures. A spokesman for Afscme declined to comment.

This hits the ability of PEUs to flow cash into political campaigns and to seek to get PEU friendly representatives across the table to pass legislation friendly to the PEUs.  That is inherently corrupt as it puts PEUs in a position of running both sides of the table during negotiations, which short-changes the public at large.  For a Blue State Governor, putting the case forward that the public, alone, should be the ones to decide how many employees should be in the government, what they should get paid and what other perks should be paid by the public to give to the employees.

Of course this is the 'Third Rail' of PEU influence in politics at the State and local level.  Yet it is the easiest to sell to the public.  Why should PEUs get a say in the political process which, in essence, allows them to influence votes, influence the legislative process and to bias the legislation in their favor at public expense?  The major upside is that public employees will get an opportunity to get a virtual raise by not funding the PEUs.

Second - Pension and health care reform requiring PEU members to pay a larger percent (or ANY percent) of their pension and health care insurance.  Changing the pension system to get away from the pyramid scheme system where current PEU members pay for the pensions of current retirees, with the State or local government picking up any difference, is bankrupting the governments involved.  Shifting to a defined contribution set of plans under the control of the public employees individually, firstly empowers employees to determine their own course in life means that their independence is increased by having an individual retirement plan.

As most private employees pay a large percentage of their health care insurance (either through an employer or purchased individually) the idea that public employees should pay an equivalent amount, or at least something closer to what the federal employees pay (approx. 40%) attacks the idea of 'fairness'.  Putting public employees in the same position as their private counterparts is self-evident as a 'fairness' measure, and yet another easy sell to the public at large.  Anyone who spouts 'fairness' should support this as it is the basis of having a level employment system amongst public and private employees.

These can both be made more palatable to public employees by letting them decide if they want to pay dues to the PEUs (step 1), thus by doing the first step, the second becomes easier.  This can be made more palatable to public employees by allowing a voucher so that they can choose a private health plan or cash it out as additional income and fully take the risk for their own health care on their own.  Shifting cost need not be a fully negative affair and can be made into a liberating and empowering experience for the individuals involved.

Third - Remove the under-performers.  For the public to see an increase in performance and to see that tax dollars are being spent wisely and that public employees are dedicated to their job and not just to their perks, remove protection from being fired from the public employee workforce and shift pay to meet performance.  To do this set standards of performance and efficiency to be met by public employees and fire the bottom 10% each and every year, regardless of seniority, time in service, or level of service.  Performance can have input from peers within the workforce, input from upper and lower levels of the public employee structure and public input.

This moves a step beyond what has been done in WI, but follows the successful system utilized by the CIA.  There it is possible to shift up and down the pay structure very quickly which means that performance matters.  By linking pay with performance and getting under-performers out of the system means there is incentive to perform better and serve the public in a more open and friendly manner.  After the power of the PEUs is removed and public employees are given more independence, the move to a performance based system then becomes possible.  This utilizes the 'best of breed' systems utilized elsewhere and underscores that the job of a public employee is to serve the public, not just service the public.

By increasing visible efficiency and friendliness government functions are done better and with greater transparency.  Increased efficiency means having a workforce that can be downsized over time, perhaps by removing job billets with the annual 10% reduction, until optimal efficiency is reached by the remaining labor force.  Companies do this and the same methodology can be applied to government functions.  After step one and step two, this then puts the results of those two into play to the benefit of the public.  A way to show this is to remove fees and other payment overhead from State functions for the public as the public is already paying for the function and shouldn't have to pay twice for it: efficiency should have visible rewards beyond just better service.

Result - For a Blue State Governor this achieves reform without having to become a 'Right To Work' State, which means that Unions (not just PEUs) have no basis to lobby against the government on hostility to Unionization grounds.  Public employees are a different category from private employees as they serve the public, on the public's dime and that is garnered through involuntary taxation (not voluntary purchase).  That sovereign function of needing individuals to perform duties for the State is due to there being a public willing to support the system of government for the benefit of the public in an unbiased manner.  Public employees do not have to worry about evil capitalist bosses as the State is not in a position to make a profit as it is not a corporation, thus there is no 'exploitation' of workers: the public sets the rules through the legislative process, everyone knows what they are and what the standards are for employment on the public's dime.

Resolving the problems of insolvency of States and local government can be handled in such a way as to ensure that all services (not just 'vital' ones) are done in an efficient, timely and courteous manner by public employees.  By rewarding efficiency and courtesy, it is reinforced, meaning that public employees understand that they are volunteering to take a public job and that they are beholden to the public for their activities.  This is a benefit not just to the public, but to public employees who are given the ability to chart their own course for longer-term life necessities and make their own decisions about what they should be.  By not rewarding organizations that slack off, by not rewarding inefficiency through larger work force sizes, and by not taking on the future debt of public employees, government size and cost can be reduced.  Showing a balanced budget, a user-friendly government, transparency on cost, and by demonstrating that positive moral values are enforced by the government, a Blue State Governor can demonstrate that they can support public needs while not putting future generations at risk for insolvent decisions made for politically expedient reasons, now.

Because of the future insolvency problems due to the current system of PEU contracts, reforms will take place.  Taking some pain now can mean avoiding default and bankruptcy of governments, which is a much, much larger pain when that happens.  It doesn't matter how Blue the State is: this is coming.

The other results from last night were from the cities of San Diego and San Jose reforming pensions for their public employees.

CA is a very Blue State, yet even there reform is coming due to decades of spendthrift government and bloated government PEU structures.

If a Governor doesn't get ahead of the game, then it will be done for him or her starting from the ground-upwards.

When that happens the color of Blue just might disappear.

Even the most deeply committed ideologue in government does have a survival instinct.  From last night's results, that instinct is now being forced to the forefront.

Reform is coming to America.

You can do it fast and with some pain now, or with much greater pain in a couple of years and putting our children and grandchildren into a 3rd world failed Nation situation.

That choice is yours.

I suggest you make sure you are registered to vote.

What are Tea Parties?

The following is a white paper of The Jacksonian Party.

What are Tea Parties?

Well, this is pretty simple: Tea Parties are gatherings of Americans to protest high government spending and the impoverishment of the American people to get through a minor economic recession.

A look at the signs being held up by the protesters reveals an interesting panorama of thought going on behind them, here at the recent Cincinnati Tea Party as seen by pictures sent into Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit:

From a linked article at the Cincinnati Enquirer on 15 MAR 2009 we have this:

The group wants Congress to repeal the $787 billion stimulus package that President Barack Obama has championed as a way to create jobs and give the economy a boost.

“The thought of all this spending makes me angry,” Frost said. “I’m tired of being angry.”

Other protesters wore Revolutionary-era costumes, sported “Got Tea?” shirts and raised signs with messages like, “Give us Liberty, not debt” and “No more bailouts.”

“There is a movement going on in this country,” said former U.S. Rep. Steve Chabot. “You can see it here today.”

Sean Lynch of Colerain Township brought his children . His 8-year-old, Isabel, held a “Stop spending my allowance” sign, and 5-year-old Kate raised one that read “Stay out of my piggy bank.”

“I’m frustrated with the way things are going in Congress. They need to remember that they work for us, and right now, we don’t approve,” Lynch said as he propped up a sign for his son Charlie, 2.

“This is not a Democrat thing or a Republican thing,” he said. “It’s a government thing.”

I have highlighted the parts I think important by bolding them.

This is not an ideological based movement, then: it is not tied to a party, nor class, nor to any single sub-part of America.

From a previous Rochester Tea Party on 11 MAR 2009 we have this from Chuck Simmins:

And from the Sarasota Tea Party on 28 FEB 2009 we get these images featuring Frances Rice:

This is not a standard politically backed, demographically centered demonstration as this happens in more than just 'hot bed' campuses, more than just a 'disenfranchised' group, and more than one geographic area.  Looking at Instapundit and searching with 'tea party' the hits and images demonstrate that this is not a top-down, activist led effort.  There are some trying to advise the Tea Parties on what they should do next, but this is not a centralized effort: it cannot be led although it can find advocates and spokesmen.  By having no dividing line of class, gender, race, politics or any other things save being aggrieved Americans this can be called an organic outgrowth of society.  This is a natural expression of society that is now moving forward via individuals who adhere to a set of common principles that they rarely feel the need to state.

This does have scholarship behind it, in the writings of Walter Russell Mead (article cache by Steven Den Beste):

A principal explanation of why Jacksonian politics are so poorly understood is that Jacksonianism is less an intellectual or political movement than an expression of the social, cultural and religious values of a large portion of the American public. And it is doubly obscure because it happens to be rooted in one of the portions of the public least represented in the media and the professoriat. Jacksonian America is a folk community with a strong sense of common values and common destiny; though periodically led by intellectually brilliant men—like Andrew Jackson himself—it is neither an ideology nor a self-conscious movement with a clear historical direction or political table of organization. Nevertheless, Jacksonian America has produced—and looks set to continue to produce—one political leader and movement after another, and it is likely to continue to enjoy major influence over both foreign and domestic policy in the United States for the foreseeable future.

By being unaligned to the elite class and centering on a societal based value set, the Tea Party movement is a description of how Jacksonian America manifests itself.  This is not a party of a 'vision' based movement but one that is inherently based on the individual, individualism and seeking to have government accountable to society, not dictate to it.

Mr. Den Beste would examine this in regards to how law and international law are two different things, but have similar needs due to what they are:

The rule of law works within our nation because it is enforced by police and the courts. The rule of international law works because we're willing to fight when others ignore it if we think the issues involved are sufficiently important.

By Jacksonian lights, no rule of law works without the threat of force, and if the threat of force is removed then lawbreakers will come out of the woodwork. And sometimes they'll appear anyway, which is why war will always be with us and why good Jacksonians make sure that their nation always remains militarily strong.

Having police and courts doesn't prevent crime, but it does give us the ability to deal with it. By the same token having a strong military doesn't prevent the need for war, but it does give us a better chance of winning when the time comes. Nobody wants a war, but if you have to fight one it's much better to win it than to lose it.

And the police do deter some crime, and having a strong military does prevent some threats of war. Jacksonians are deeply practical; perfect solutions aren't possible and this one is the best available to us.

While it's true that some degree of international regulation is required in order for trade and other international dealings to take place, Jacksonians are always suspicious of such regulations because they want to make sure that the regulators don't have an ulterior motive, and to make sure that everyone is playing by the same rules. The situation works because it is subject to constant scrutiny and because we don't go overboard relying on it.

This object of scrutiny of the law and law makers to ensure that regulation is not putting forth a partisan 'cause' but serving all of society is at the sense of fair play for Jacksonians.  A bit further on Mr. Den Beste examines this:

Jacksonians don't have any interest in spreading their philosophy around the world. It isn't evangelistic; indeed, the entire concept of trying to actively spread that or any other philosophy around the world is deeply repugnant to pure Jacksonians. Jacksonians are anti-imperialistic.

The whole point of Jacksonianism is "You leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. You play fair with me and I'll play fair with you. But if you fuck with me, I'll kill you."

To Jacksonians, it is entirely possible to create an adequate world framework of consistent and fair behavior, sufficient to support trade, through vigilance and the threat of reprisal (military or otherwise). Going beyond that to a world government as such is neither necessary, desirable nor even possible, and the best case is where there is as little international framework and governance as can be: only the bare minimum required but no more. Anything beyond that will eventually be abused by someone, so it's better to do without it.

Famously Jacksonians will put up with a lot on the civil side of things, but once the idea of fair play is tossed out the window by a government (foreign or domestic) the retribution is definitively *not* proportional.  A minor final ill will bring you conflict if the ills before that have not been addressed and built up without redress.  Mead addresses this in the international law area, but due to the way Jacksonians view all law, what is seen for that venue holds true for the national part, too:

Given the moral gap between the folk community and the rest of the world—and given that other countries are believed to have patriotic and communal feelings of their own, feelings that similarly harden once the boundary of the folk community is reached—Jacksonians believe that international life is and will remain both anarchic and violent. The United States must be vigilant and strongly armed. Our diplomacy must be cunning, forceful and no more scrupulous than anybody else’s. At times, we must fight pre-emptive wars. There is absolutely nothing wrong with subverting foreign governments or assassinating foreign leaders whose bad intentions are clear. Thus, Jacksonians are more likely to tax political leaders with a failure to employ vigorous measures than to worry about the niceties of international law.

Political leaders, then, are those who must address the problems faced by society without putting society in jeopardy by its actions.  This is, at its base, how Jacksonians view the common effort of representative government - it is to be held to account for those things it does, expected to protect society and secure our livelihood without becoming deeply entrenched in intrusive means to 'guide' society.  Society needs no guidance, free people will guide themselves perfectly well with a minimum of overhead.  Politicians have been both seen at Tea Parties and been the pointed object of Tea Parties.  The reason that no politician can step up to LEAD Tea Parties, as a whole, is that attending them is a survival instinct: this is a movement that when it gets a pointy end to it, that end will be pointed at those in power.  In the old '60s radicalist parlance, politicians realize they are part of the problem... and the radicals realize that, to this movement, so are they. 

That is also why we do not see puppets, people on stilts or effigies being burnt.  A movement of aggrieved society does not waste its time on showmanship and if things have to be burnt or put up in a noose, it is better to do so to the source of the problem, not some paper representation of it.  It is deeply offensive to strike at a home-made symbol until you are actually ready to do something about it, then you don't need the symbol any more as it is the thing, itself, that is now the object of ire and you are now prepared with your fellow citizens to remove it.  In a sense of fair play if you really mean to bring down the system, then bring it down and then society can judge you for your actions.  Don't waste time and energy on the frivolity of being outraged until that outrage can gain an outlet that is productive in its work.  Jacksonians realize that 'burn, baby, burn' is a call to destroy our heritage, ancestry and the good works of our forefathers and foremothers.  That is sickening, and shows only appreciation for your petty beliefs and no honor to the hard work that has gotten you to where you can have them.

The honored symbol of this spirit is the rattle snake and 'Don't Tread On Me'.  Like the rattlesnake you get one, final warning before it strikes and that warning is for you to back off, move away, don't bother it any more or you shall pay the price.  When you hear that sound you freeze in your tracks and your next step should be one of the most wary of your life as you know it can lead to an automatic reaction faster than you can ever move.  To get to this point in US society we have seen government used to push private, partisan and splintering causes into the 'mainstream' via law.  The deep intrusion into what the individual must have to determine what is right for themselves is not only deeply offensive, but builds up grievances over time.  The most supreme right one can have is to scandalize the neighbors and to be scandalized by them: when government steps in to tell you that you may not judge that behavior and, indeed, must support it as a 'minority' of one class or another, then that is seen as striking against society.  Individual attacks may be minor, but their cumulative effect is major.  To now see a cohort in society that is making society broke to fund ill-founded 'good things' that should be the province of the individual ALONE is not something that builds up over night, but over decades.  With more and more power vested in those that we do not know being used to  crony and crooked ends to satisfy slim parts of society, the mass of society examines this and slowly builds its level of disagreement.

President Jackson quite clearly stated why such distrust comes to the forefront the Bank Veto Message of 10 JUL 1832:

The Government of the United States have no constitutional power to purchase lands within the States except "for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings," and even for these objects only "by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be." By making themselves stockholders in the bank and granting to the corporation the power to purchase lands for other purposes they assume a power not granted in the Constitution and grant to others what they do not themselves possess. It is not necessary to the receiving, safe-keeping, or transmission of the funds of the Government that the bank should possess this power, and it is not proper that Congress should thus enlarge the powers delegated to them in the Constitution.

When the American people see Congress using money to support ill-use of taxpayer funds to back loans to those who cannot repay them, and then get into a crony support system with those banks and offices backing them, we see a deep chasm between what government is told it CAN do and what it CAN'T do.  He clearly states the case of why having government support such an institution (in this case the National Bank) is not a good thing:

Is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country? The president of the bank has told us that most of the State banks exist by its forbearance. Should its influence become concentered, as it may under the operation of such an act as this, in the hands of a self-elected directory whose interests are identified with those of the foreign stockholders, will there not be cause to tremble for the purity of our elections in peace and for the independence of our country in war? Their power would be great whenever they might choose to exert it; but if this monopoly were regularly renewed every fifteen or twenty years on terms proposed by themselves, they might seldom in peace put forth their strength to influence elections or control the affairs of the nation. But if any private citizen or public functionary should interpose to curtail its powers or prevent a renewal of its privileges, it can not be doubted that he would be made to feel its influence.

This brings out the basic level of distrust that the American people have with such powerful institutions run by and for government ends:

It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society-the farmers, mechanics, and laborers-who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles.

In hearing people say they are working from 'just principles' they should state them clearly, succinctly and not assume they are understood by another.  The just principles of government are to treat all equally under the law and to play no favorites in enriching one class or group over another, nor to bring down one or another by taxation as that is also destructive to society.  Society can put up with inequality of results so long as there is equality at the starting point of all men being mortal and gaining no titles or privileges beyond what they can garner from family or make themselves.  Equality of talent or outcome assures an impoverishment of society and its individuals as no one is allowed to achieve and demonstrate excellence in ability.

That deep sense of fairness amongst the American people has been pushed hard by 'minority rights' when, as given in the Constitution, all rights not given to government are held by the States and the people and need NO backing save to curb the abuses of them.  When a 'positivist' right is asserted by a small group and is then expected to be accepted by the entirety of society without having shown just cause as to why those rights are good and why they should be upheld beyond what the individual can do, society is then subject to injustice of support for some rights over others.  Pushing that through by law or legislation is not the same as having it be an organically recognized outgrowth of society but an appendage to it that has not passed the trials and tribulations of internal review by society before it can even reach the level of government.

For this concept Jacksonians go to the heart of the American Revolution as it was most clearly stated just before the Declaration, and which fully backs it.  The entry lines to that work:

Some writers have so confounded society with government,
as to leave little or no distinction between them;
whereas they are not only different, but have different origins.
Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness;
the former promotes our POSITIVELY by uniting our affections,
the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one
encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions.
The first a patron, the last a punisher.

Thomas Paine, Common Sense (via the Gutenberg Project).

Pushing government to do more than ensure that your rights are not infringed upon is contrary to building society.  To build society one must demonstrate the use and utility of what you are pushing, that it does not seek to alter society and that such changes do not need the backing of society, just toleration by it.  As individuals we are a tolerant people, and can be scandalized by  much so long as no lives are lost and there is no cost incurred to society or individual liberty put at threat.  Equal protection under the law is the foundation of how society has determined it wishes to work.  Via government some few positive aspects of society are given shelter by government and protection, so as to allow individuals to support themselves.  When the law goes beyond that, to uphold that some rights are better than others, some people better than others for things that are perfectly allowable in civil society, such as bias, the law goes too far.  We agree to equal treatment for all citizens in our common endeavors in the market place and set up rules to ensure that mere bias does not become discrimination and bar to that market place.  When individuals don't want to be offended by other individuals, that is asking far too much of the law and far too little of yourself to understand those who have bias and either confront it or not as the case may be.  When only your sensitivities are offended, your recourse is to either suck it up or pass it off, not to make it a legal argument that people may not have ANY bias in their lives.  Bias is a natural outcome of the human condition: acting on it to remove the rights of others is an action that cannot be tolerated for those things society holds in common.  Seeking to make government take the money of the people to pay for the sensitivities of the few then starts building up, in a step-wise approach, the movement towards the rattlesnake.

Once that one more step in the wrong direction is taken, then the all-out confrontation begins.  Any time society feels at threat and those that govern it feel free to put down things contrary to society that enriches themselves and their brown-nosed cohort, you rarely get a chance to step back.  The sense of fair play when pushed to breaking is brittle, and while the last offense can be tiny, the reaction to it is huge and overwhelming.  When pushed to that limit, society then reacts via those within it seeking to preserve society and recognize that government must act in accord TO society, not society TO government.  In WWII the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and got the timing of their Declaration of War wrong by just a bit, so that it arrived *after* the bombing, which is then seen as a sneak attack.  Timing is everything, and even a minute before is better than a minute after as the time after is now null and void of meaning in diplomacy.  As these interactions are seen as 'scale free' by Jacksonians, that is they do not have different measuring sticks at different sizes of analysis, then Nations are judged just the same as individuals and governments.  By not following established norm, protocol and giving fair warning, the attacker that does so is seen as dishonorable.  It does not matter if this is in a bar fight, sending police to go after politicians, or an attack on one Nation by another without first declaring war.  The response is the same: fight, fight all out, fight with everything you have and win or die trying.

The rattlesnake is a very social animal, as snakes go, keeping to dens that harbor many of their kin, especially when the winds blow cold.  The worry when hearing a rattlesnake is not just in the one you hear, but in its kin that are nearby that are not to be disturbed.  The famous saying of the US soldier at war is simple, plain and direct:

"We did not start this war.  But we sure, as hell, will end it."

The Tea Parties are the rattle of the rattlesnake, the warning that you have gotten far too close for comfort and now need to back off and make amends and show that you are, indeed, backing off.

If Congress rescinds the bailouts, removes the CRA and asinine 'regulations' that mandate that private lenders must give to those who cannot repay such loans, and divests itself of these corrupt organs that have caused so much woe, then the positive step away from the rattlesnake will be done.  Unfortunately those that feel so brave to 'help' society don't know when they are about to get the fury of it.  And yet they have been warned.

Government aid to the newspapers

There are those in the ink on paper media that seek help from the government in the way of a 'bail out' for their failing form of publication.  This from 31 DEC 2008 article at al-Reuters:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Connecticut lawmaker Frank Nicastro sees saving the local newspaper as his duty. But others think he and his colleagues are setting a worrisome precedent for government involvement in the U.S. press.

Nicastro represents Connecticut's 79th assembly district, which includes Bristol, a city of about 61,000 people outside Hartford, the state capital. Its paper, The Bristol Press, may fold within days, along with The Herald in nearby New Britain.

[..]

Nicastro and fellow legislators want the papers to survive, and petitioned the state government to do something about it. "The media is a vitally important part of America," he said, particularly local papers that cover news ignored by big papers and television and radio stations.

To some experts, that sounds like a bailout, a word that resurfaced this year after the U.S. government agreed to give hundreds of billions of dollars to the automobile and financial sectors.

Relying on government help raises ethical questions for the press, whose traditional role has been to operate free from government influence as it tries to hold politicians accountable to the people who elected them. Even some publishers desperate for help are wary of this route.

Government taking an interest in the media?  Actually putting money into yet another ill-funded, ill-thought out, and unable to adapt corporate structure?

From personal experience in attending print and print media conferences, seminars, and industry meetings in the 1990's, the word that the various large news organizations in the print media was that:  we will figure this out, real soon now (RSN).  That earliest in 1994 to my memory, coming from the NYT.  I heard similar from the WaPo, Chi Trib, and many, many others.  They couldn't conceive of their stature and status and market being threatened by 'New Media' and that they would corral it all RSN, by golly!

Year after year I heard that until 2000 at least.  The New Media was going to easily accept the dominant news organizations!  They would have a secure business model!  They would co-opt and integrate these new technologies and, don't worry, those little people putting out their own information, their own stories and, indeed, their own media were 'unreliable', 'untrustworthy' and 'had no editors'.

Unfortunately for the print media giants, I had actually READ their daily works and they sucked like an Electrolux.  Pure Hooverage in the sucking department.  They couldn't reach out to give good writers a wider audience: they shunned them and tried to ignore them.

They tried to put in dedicated delivery concepts, as if we all wanted a piece of paper with a lovely banner on it, when we just wanted the damned information.

You may remember RIAA trying all sorts of ways to sequester music, make it 'pay for play' and otherwise trying to say that every time you heard a snippet of music you should pay a fee.  That ran into a problem called: digital reproduction at effective zero cost.  They took their big guns out and directly aimed them at their feet and *hit them* with deadly accuracy.  Those self-inflicted wounds brought out the idea that the only thing you are owed is access to a market: when the market changes, you have to figure out how to change with it or die.

Newspapers have a grand way of looking at the world that is disappearing right before their very eyes and taking their profit with it.  Local ads and news was seen as the one, good sanctuary of excellent papers.  They flubbed that, nearly to each individual paper.  The worse reporting on LA is by the LA Times, ditto NY and the NYT and the WaPo, who has the government beat, can't even hire journalists who can figure out the government's budget cycle.

When we speak of 'freedom of the press' that is something that belongs to the people, not the press.  The people have the right to the press on their own, it is not something given to a select few.  The Connecticut Constitution has a very explicit view on this in Article First, Declarations:

SEC. 4. Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.

SEC. 5. No law shall ever be passed to curtail or restrain the liberty of speech or of the press.

The citizens of Connecticut have the right to speak freely and publish their works.

No one said you would be successful at it or get paid for it.

They go one better, however, and give us this in Article First:

SEC. 18. No hereditary emoluments, privileges or honors, shall ever be granted, or conferred in this state.

Being paid to publish would be considered to be an emolument granted by the State for those legacy businesses that are seeking it.  Doing so would put those businesses at an advantage over start-ups, and violate the idea that there is no hereditary right for a business to be successful through getting money from the State.  Incumbent businesses have the same right to fail as new start-ups, and seeking intervention by government is seeking to distort the market in your favor.  Citing a lineage of a paper does not make this better, but emphasizes the concept of how cozy that business is that it can ask and expect to GET such a privilege and honor from the State.  Businesses have the right to exist.  No one said they had the right to succeed: you are on your own at that.

When you get the right to succeed you also get the exact, same, right to fail.

I see the US Constitution in the same manner.  Amendment I prohibits Congress from making any law to abridge the freedom of speech or the press, and that means that empowering existing, legacy media groups to continue when they have failed in their own endeavors is trodding on the right of others to enter the market to pick up the slack when these businesses FAIL.

No government has the place of putting itself in the position of deciding if a business should succeed or fail, as that is then a State decided enterprise, no matter who runs it.  With that you get power of position in the market and no need to change your sorry ways, and thus become a haven for corruption while seeking coercive means to retain that market position.  Giving monopolies is a very dicey thing for government, as granting one means that the business getting it now has no reason to compete, no reason to succeed and every reason to grind as much money out of you as possible.

These businesses had their wake-up call over a decade ago and hit the SNOOZE button and turned over in their joyous sleep of wealth that would be so easy to retain.  Now the coffee has turned to sludge at the bottom of the pot, the toast is flacid and the fried eggs at room temperature and they wake up to complain that breakfast has not been served?  It appears they missed the wake-up call... and now they ask for lunch, too?

Nothing is 'too big to fail'.

The very United States failed under the Articles of Confederation and nearly took the place down with it.

Tectonic stress causes failure, earthquakes and a shaking up of the surface of the planet, they are not too big to fail.

Hot magma from beneath the crust wells up and through the crust to burst through as volcanoes, thus the very crust of the planet is not too big to fail.

Our sun will exhaust itself and grow large turning this planet into a rocky cinder, and yet the very sun is not too big to fail.

Nor is our universe, whiling away for billions of years more, it will fail in ensuring that stars will exist and that energy will come from its origins and then that, too, will fail.

If the universe can fail, then so can the damned inefficient and ineffective industries that have their hands out for your hard earned cash.

I would recommend that the good people of Connecticut establish that they do NOT want a hereditary press guaranteed BY government to tell them what to think about events of the day.  That is the path to large scale failure that we barely evaded after the Articles of Confederation failed us as a Nation.  Better to let businesses die and let the citizenry gamble on new ideas than to but into an assured failure of State supported enterprises.

I will trust my fellow man far more than any government that seeks to do that.  At least I have the chance to figure out if a crook is trying to swindle me.  When government does, I have no choice at all.

US lending doesn't follow the Nordic crisis

I have Nordic background, being half-Swede. Luckily I am also half-Polish so there is more than a large dose of common sense about affairs that also help me out culturally. In the aftermath of the Nordic Banking crisis of the 1990's, the Director Monetary and Exchange Affairs Department, Stefan Ingves at the IMF had a perspective speech that he gave in 2002, and while many are pointing to the similarities in what the US should do, lets see if there is basis for that in the original problem. I will paraphrase heavily, but hope to retain the gist of his overview. In that overview he gives the following as causes for the Nordic Banking crisis:

1. Bad banking - Not only poor lending practices but lack of internal oversight and a culture aimed at gaining market share. There were few incentives to make prudent loans for bank managers or lending officers and there was no accountability when they did hand out loans to those with high risk background.


2. Inadequate market discipline - Lack of transparency in lending practices leading to financial institutions being unable to judge the health of banks. Weak legal institutional and legal frameworks to ensure good banking practices. "Expectations of depositor and creditor bailouts may overpower any policy to the contrary."


3. Weak regulatory and supervisory frameworks - Concentrated lending, portfolio mismatches and inadequate loan valuation. This lead to an overstatement of profits and working capital, as well as leading to poor market valuation. A prime cause here is also a lack of managerial staff to properly process and analyze investments, with such staff being inadequate and/or poorly paid.


4. Inadequate macro policies and adverse macroeconomic developments - This created lending booms, excessive capital inflows, changes in the tax code to incentivize this. This lead to real estate/equity price bubble markets, a slowdown of exports, failing profitability in real estate markets, rising deficits for those institutions, current pricing accountability for institutions and the markets they were in, lower investment, weakening of the public to sustain the growing debt, and sharp exchange rate changes. As noted not all of these *can* be regulated. And then premature liberalization of lending practice rules.


5. Contagion - The weakness and decay in one bank spreading rapidly throughout the banking sector.

The US has seen some of this going on, of course, but it is telling that in the Nordic crisis, as in the US, there was a government involvement in all of these areas that led to those problems. There are some underlying causes in the Nordic countries in the 1990's that are specific to them, however, and without understanding those, the generic 'problems' area cannot be properly assessed. Some of these are marked dissimilarities and others are very close to the current US crisis, so paying attention to them means being able to weight those differences against our current problems.

Mr. Ingves looks at those as follows:

1. Bad bank management - Banks run by small groups of individuals or families, who treat the bank as a 'personal piggy bank' for themselves. That makes both bank managers and the owners problematical in having oversight capability as it is highly biased to the personal interests of the owners. Some owners sought to conceal these problems via off-shore institutions owned by their banks, very much like how the BNL scandal of the early 1980's had separate accounts to give regulators one set of numbers and hide a complete 'bank within a bank'. State owned banks (those licensed or run by governments) had this from the directional side of those governments, with implicit and explicit instructions to run poor lending practices to the benefit of politicians. State run or regulated institutions often do not have the level of accountability or scrutiny applied to them that private institutions have. "The clean up cost is often very large measured as a percentage of GDP."


2. Macroeconomic sustainability constraints - Larger, better capitalized nations fare better than smaller ones in banking problems. While the Asian and Nordic crises would shock their respective regions, the economies, though hard hit, would remain without collapsing. Smaller countries have to put their creditability of their nation behind such bad banking so as to not have a full collapse of their systems. Thus the Nordic Crisis was, for all its pain, mild in comparison to something like what happened in Argentina or Turkey. The Nordic countries were already used to 'micro-managing' and were able to utilize those skills to address the crisis well and quickly, as they had practice in things going wrong with larger institutions.


3. Ability of political systems to make decisions in the public interest - That is in the interest of the public, not public officials. Politicians need to absorb the losses equally across the political spectrum when such a crisis happens, and not politicize it. Banking ownership and structures in many countries prevent this from happening, and government representatives are willing to take a 'do nothing' approach rather than act in the public interest. Supervisors often lack legal protection to allow them to help bring the problems to light and to identify the problem areas involved, thus making the ability to understand what is going on harder. Again, the Nordic countries have a good cultural system which helped here.


4. Access to well-trained staff, with personal integrity - When the Nordic countries couldn't find good, local help, they hired from the outside from reputable organizations or individuals with skills necessary to address the problems. Again the cultural requirement for high degrees of personal honesty and integrity play heavily into this area for being able to manage the crisis.


5. Size and economic importance of banking system - The banking crisis was small in comparison to overall GDP. Many Asian countries had banking systems with a size of over valuated assets equal to 200% of GDP. The very small size of the banking sector in comparison to productivity helped the Nordic countries out immensely and caused very little exposure to deeper losses and long term economic stagnation.

So the US does have some fundamental equivalencies, but also some very stark contrasts with the Nordic banking crisis.

First up is the very nature of the institutions involved. Unlike the Nordic countries, the US does not have banks treated like personal piggy banks by families and small groups. That was the S&L scandal of the 1980's. So that is put by the side as a major causative factor.

Second up is federal influence in lending practices. Here this is more than just a mild equivalence, but a strong one and the primary cause. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are explicitly backed federal organs with 'private ownership' which boils down to private investment with the actual lending institutions being led by political cronies appointed by Presidents without oversight. In the atmosphere of increased home ownership lending spurred on by Congress, and then pressured by Congress by seeking to ease monetary policy, these quasi-federal organs then lobbied Congress to remove more constraints on bad lending practices so they could do more of them. Today there are Congressmen who are *still* pushing for allowing borrowers to keep their homes, even though they cannot pay the rates they agreed to... rates pushed on the industry by Congress reducing the amount a borrower had to put down to get FHA mortgage backing.

Third is weakness in oversight. Here, again, it is mostly federally backed institutions with the exception of AIG that made imprudent decisions based on the expected continuation of bad lending practices pushed by Congress. The idea of a bailout in one sector with a bunch of bad loans now gets another sector, those backing auto loans, to seek the exact, same protection and expectation of a bailout for *their* poor lending practices that depended heavily on the flow of easy money for home loans to then allow consumers to live well outside their financial capability and add a new car to the mix.

Fourth is the cultural attitude of responsibility and honesty that saved the Nordic countries. It is wholly absent from the federal side, after having pushed *in* those with political agendas to Fannie and Freddie: these individuals have no want nor need to hold themselves accountable, to point out crony loans or to even worry about the fact that these are public funds they are backed by. Lobbying Congress for politically targeted loans for those who cannot afford them as a way to garner political support then gets Congressional pressure *not* to be honest and uphold accounting standards when reviewing these organizations by other Federal organs, like the Federal Reserve. This becomes a multi-party, multi-President problem going back decades to slowly remove honesty and accountability from the system, not add it in.

Fifth is the size of the economy and the effect of boom/busts in various sectors. Starting in 2000 a large bust cycle in technology stocks was rocking the Nation and that would further be rocked by the 9/11 attacks that would severely hit the real estate market in NYC and the global insurance underwriting market for all the claims that came in due to those private structures coming down. The vast size of the US economy in 2001 weathered that and even showed a small GDP *increase*. With a market bust and a massive terrorist attack that hit the financial center of the US and the world, the United States *still* managed to grow. Those two, combined, would lose more value to the economy in an infrastructure way than the Fannie and Freddie mess will do in a personal way, and yet it is the violins trotted out for those personal losses that seek to get public underwriting for them. After 9/11 some insurance institutions would go 'critical' and either be absorbed or given some help to restructure, but a massive investment into the private underwriting sector of the economy wasn't done and the entire US economy would benefit from having a realistic risk re-assessment take place after 9/11 to properly valuate property and commercial risk to terrorist attacks.

Sixth the ability of public institutions to make good decisions in the public interest. Those institutions are the CAUSE of this problem along with the Congressional system that put them in place and the lack of oversight on Presidential picks to the boards of these institutions. This is a huge problem as these public institutions have been run for long-term political advantage and not on a sound monetary basis, and the two are in direct conflict. While some regulation for upholding such things as accounting and reporting standards are necessary, the 'public good' has been in pressing those economically unable to sustain home ownership and other purchases with public backed loans to assume an unhealthy risk financially for themselves at public expense. It is now the smart thing to take the keys to that overvalued house and drop them on the banks desk and 'walk away' from your responsibilities and there has been no political repercussions because some of those self-same politicians are doing the exact, same thing. That 'public good' has eroded basic honesty and integrity in financial responsibility by individuals, not supported it, which is part of the cultural problem now made worse by direct public support to abuse lending institutions and the public backing of them.

Seventh is the regulatory framework. They are not 'weak' but are operating in a way contrary to sound fiscal policy based on individual accountability. They are 'strong' in their support of political goals. Public institutions that do not have the acumen to understand this nor are willing to hire onto their staffs those that DO are a major and main cause of this problem. Because politicians seek political goals, they hire those with political motivations and ideas which are not in direct concordance with sound fiscal and monetary ideas. If Congress gets the blame in backing such institutions, it is each and every Congresscritter who refuses to take wise counsel from those who are well versed in the non-political requirements of sound fiscal and monetary accountability that are to be held at fault for pushing such unsound regulatory, legal and cultural attitudes out the door. And private institution that follows that lead and disregards its OWN wise counsel deserves the pain it will get as they are aiding and abetting unsound practice in search of political goals.

For all the cursory similarities with the Nordic banking crisis, we cannot and should not follow any path set by them as they have a different underlying basis for culture and the resultant economy of the 1990's than the US does today, in 2008. Those pathways are not an option to the US for those reasons. Until the American people can elect individuals who will eschew monetary and fiscal policy in search of political ends, that will remain the case as long as those elected representatives are in the majority control of both houses of Congress. Individual accountability not only rests with those who asked for such loans, those who gave such loans, but also those who pushed this environment and culture out the door via enacting legislation over the last 70 years to get us to this point in time. We can and should let those institutions *fail* as the economic shock, while large to the public, will be small to the overall economy and will enforce basic practices of accountability for those who have unwisely sought to live beyond their means. No matter the size of the Nation or its economic vibrancy, that will come to a bad and crashing end if it continues, and if our elected representatives cannot understand that, then it is up to the wheels of the economy to do their job for them and to teach them some humility that good politics in push a bad economic ideal comes to bad ends. It is a tiny minority of loans that are exposed in this and the vast majority of US households will only be at risk of having slightly over-valued loans and lower real estate taxes due to that for a period of some years until the bad loans and bad lenders are cleared off the boards.

That requires Fannie and Freddie to bite the dust along with all of the political appointees in them.

Don't I have any sympathy for those who got such loans and their impact to the economy?

No. Get it done and over with so we can learn, as a public, that we are required to recognize the basics of personal responsibility to each other and *not* involve the Nation in ill-conceived ideas about what we are 'due' as citizens. Because we currently don't have the culture to get accountability back into politics. Otherwise the fiscally sane and solvent will be dishing up lots of hard earned cash to bail out those who are neither and who will never have any incentive to GET fiscally sane and solvent.

Otherwise you will slowly lose the population that is fiscally sane and solvent, and that will bring down the Nation in the long run.

And abrogate our responsibility to hand the Blessings of Liberty to our Posterity.

Accountability is part of that.

And this form of conservatism is...?

Jonathan Rauch in the MAY 2008 Atlantic Monthly has an interesting concept of what conservatism is, and I thought it was worth looking at as he is saying that Sen. McCain, by the standards he puts forward, is conservative. So lets look at the basics of Mr. Rauch's view, and I will do it step-wise.

Step 1

Burke is the father of modern conservatism, and still its wisest oracle. Tradition-minded but (contrary to stereotype) far from reactionary, he believed in balancing individual rights with social order. The best way to do that, for Burke, was by respecting long-standing customs and institutions while advancing toward liberty and equality. Society’s traditions, after all, embody an evolved collective wisdom that even (or especially) the smartest of individuals cannot hope to understand comprehensively, much less reinvent successfully.

So, this boils down to: stick what's been put in place and don't rock the boat and balance liberty with 'social order'. Call it the 'stable and orderly' rule.

Step 2

The Burkean outlook takes individual rights seriously, and understands that civic order serves no purpose if its result is oppression or misery. It also understands that social stability, far from being endangered by institutional change, positively depends upon it. Burkeans no more believe in a golden past than they do in a perfect future. For them, the question is not whether society should change, but how.

This one is a bit harder to figure out, as it posits taking individual rights seriously, but then puts forward that institutional change is necessary to secure those rights. Call it the 'Bigger is better' rule for institutions.

Step 3

Burke himself was an advocate of change; he sympathized with the American revolution (while famously denouncing the much more radical French one), proposed curtailing the slave trade, and fought tirelessly to reform the corrupt and monopolistic British East India Company. But he believed change should take a measured pace and should try to follow well-worn social grooves rather than cutting across them. Above all, he abhorred utopian reformers, who, by disdaining real-world constraints and overestimating their own intelligence, invariably worsen what they seek to improve.

Pretty easy this 'slow and steady wins the race' rule, with the 'change in the direction things are going' rule.

These are not just 'conservative' values, they are also ones of minimalized change. Unfortunately, from there, Mr Rauch does lose me, as he then addresses the conservative movement of Goldwater as a 'revolutionary movement'. The railing against government institutions that started with Goldwater and continued on have been a main theme of the conservative movement as the various additions to government during the Progressive era through the FDR era and to the 'Great Society' were seen as the greatest threat to individual liberty by removing the ability of individuals to make sound and prudent decisions on their own and invest those decisions at the highest and most distant institution possible: the federal government. Apparently, in putting things into the terms of human liberty and freedom being *endangered* by governmental institutions, one becomes an outcast to the kind of 'conservatism' Mr. Rauch is talking about.

Mr. Rauch then takes the case of the two current Democratic contenders as follows:

Burke would have wondered at this. And in 2008 he might have noticed that, if conservatism is as much a temperament as it is any particular set of policies, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both Democrats, have sounded more conservative than many Republicans. Both have agreed, for instance, on the need for health-care reform, but Clinton has emphasized her hard-learned lesson that change needs to be incremental, and Obama has said that a single-payer system would make sense if we were starting from scratch but that getting there from here would be “impractical”—a Burkean way to talk about change.

An actual conservative position is put forward by John Stossel in Bad Medicine which I had looked at elsewhere:

America's health-care problem is not that some people lack insurance, it is that 250 million Americans do have it.

You have to understand something right from the start. We Americans got hooked on health insurance because the government did the insurance companies a favor during World War II. Wartime wage controls prohibited cash raises, so employers started giving noncash benefits like health insurance to attract workers. The tax code helped this along by treating employer-based health insurance more favorably than coverage you buy yourself. And state governments have made things worse by mandating coverage many people would never buy for themselves.

Competition also pushed companies to offer ever-more attractive policies, such as first-dollar coverage for routine ailments like ear infections and colds, and coverage for things that are not even illnesses, like pregnancy. We came to expect insurance to cover everything.

[..]

Steering people to buy lots of health insurance is bad policy. Insurance is a necessary evil. We need it to protect us from the big risks--things most of us can't afford to pay for, like a serious illness, a major car accident, or a house fire.

But insurance is a lousy way to pay for things. You premiums go not just to pay for medical care, but also for fraud, paperwork, and insurance company employee salaries. This is bad for you, and bad for doctors.

By positing that either Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama by wishing to get 'health-care reform' by EXPANDING the insurance based system is 'conservative' misses the point that subsidized health care insurance is distorting the health care system and costing everyone who needs health care much more than it would WITHOUT the subsidies. By expanding that system people are losing hard earned dollars and their liberty to choose their own physicians and treatment plans, plus learning how to care for themselves. When the 'insurance company' pays for every visit, then the perceived value of the visit decreases taking care of minor ailments that can be readily self-diagnosed. That takes up physician time better spent with people who have harder to diagnose and treat conditions. Further, as the 'insurance company' pays for things, it engenders fraud and requires over-use of the medical test system so as to ensure that doctors demonstrate that they have eliminated all other possible ailments before settling on a correct diagnosis done in the first few tests. Subsidies remove individuals paying for their treatment from the equation so that *they* can manage their own expectations and understand the risks of going forward with a treatment on a diagnosis that may have only an 85-95% chance of being correct and require extremely expensive or lengthy or multiple tests to pin down to the 95-97% range.

There is no 'wisdom' in a system that lessens individual input from their own health care treatment and anyone trying to expand that system to further remove individual cost and oversight then removes liberty of seeking treatment on one's own. If we complain about not getting the doctor you like *now* what happens when the doctors have no effective time to meet with the increase in patients due to increased paperwork and overhead? Increasing the insurance system isn't conservative in any light and it is hard to see how ANY conservative wants there to be greater pay to middlemen, greater incitement to fraud, less return on value and more costly healthcare as a result. A subscription based model or one of accumulated credits might fit individuals over their entire life than 'insurance' but conservatives wouldn't have anything to do with *that* now, would they? That would mean individual payment, management of expectations, involvement in one's own health outlook, managing risk and, yes, some form of thrift and investment.

Not allowed, apparently, because the 'conservative' way is to remove those things, according to Mr. Rauch.

Then Mr. Rauch demonstrates how Sen. McCain is a true 'conservative' by his definition:

And then there is McCain. As eclectic a reformer as he has been in the Senate, he has been consistent in his incrementalism. Though he was known to sound hot-headed on campaign-finance reform, his legislative work produced a reform that was mostly modest in its aims and that mostly attained them. He has been an old-fashioned budget balancer, not a newfangled supply-sider. He defends his global-warming efforts as gradualist and as modeled on emissions-trading systems that have already been tested. In the presidential primaries, he showed little interest in grandiose promises.

Strange, I thought that the budget cuts and incentives in the supply-side era had yielded a large economic boom in the 1990's that President Clinton took the credit for. That 'old-fashioned budget balancer' approach was derided because it looked at the economic pie in liberal terms: static. Supply-side economics posited that trusting individuals with their own wealth would garner growth and expand the whole pie and help to pay for government. Of course when the new funds appeared then Congress quickly looked to spend those funds in BOTH PARTIES. What was also posited was that government, itself, needed to restrained as to size and actually start to decrease so as to get out of people's bedrooms and lives. The explosive growth of regulations since 1972, with half of all regulations occurring since then, needed to be slowed, ended and reversed so as to remove government institutions from trying to manage the lives of individuals. I do believe that when Burke was looking at institutions he was looking at private ones based on industry, society and religion, not public ones under control of the government.

Now here is a question for Mr. Rauch: if a trading system is so great for something nebulous like 'global warming' why isn't it so good for health care?

Global warming due to human caused greenhouse gases has an extreme problem as a hypothesis: the evidence does not back it up. Not only is the world not getting warmer, the entirety of the world's oceans are actually declining in temperature. The science is not only 'out' on global warming but may never arrive as it does not appear to be a sensible view based on the data or even the hypothetical models that result from them. When atmospheric scientists start to recognize that their models can't even reflect the past, their ability to demonstrate a future is, effectively, null. Additionally, the science on the history of the Earth indicates that carbon dioxide is a non correlation in the long-term to global temperature beyond keeping the planet from being a snowball. And as the Carboniferous had far higher levels of carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor in the atmosphere, all of them 'greenhouse gases' we can attest to the planet not having undergone a 'runaway greenhouse effect' by our present as living beings on the planet. Apparently such things as the position of the continental plates and a direct global water flow has much more to do with global climate than does 'greenhouse gases' beyond keeping the planet from being an iceball.

What kind of 'conservative' is it, exactly, that proposes any sort of scheme to forestall something that has no demonstrable proof that it is: A) happening and, B) human caused? How about trading Maiden credits with regards to an upcoming Dragon infestation? When the scientific evidence cannot point to the actuality of a thing happening, its direction, timing nor causes, then what worldly sense does it make to do anything about it? Perhaps we could start trading in Indulgences, instead, and at least get some peace of mind as to spending a shorter time in purgatory? Really, those latter two make just as much sense as that of trading in carbon dioxide emissions when the US, after not having signed the Kyoto Protocols, is far closer to reaching them than any other industrialized nation, save Russia which underwent such a steep decline in industrial output it is hard for anyone to replicate them. By 'going it alone' the US is in a far better position to toot its horn vis-a-vis cleaner industries than China, say, which now has the top spot for sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide emissions on a global basis... with far lower per capita output. Wouldn't the 'conservative' just say 'stay the course' instead of doing ANYTHING?

But then Mr. Rauch backs off his own analysis in the other area of 'conservatism' he mentions: personal liberty.

I took a rather wide-ranging view on Sen. McCain's tax outlook, past and present, and it is interesting that many conservatives consider the Ronald Reagan based view of taxation and the economy to be the new norm as of Sen. McCain's 2000 run for the Presidency. When the National Review did a quick look on Sen. McCain's tax views on 07 FEB 2007, they pointed out that he had, basically, taken the liberal view of 'closing loopholes' to garner revenue which has the net effect of raising tax burden:

His rhetoric, meanwhile, has been worse than his proposal. He suggests that Bush's tax cut is so large that it endangers Social Security-as though the government could possibly tax its way into solvency for that program. When McCain said that Bush's tax cut was "unfair"-i.e., too generous to the rich-he should have known that no tax cut could be "fair" by the liberal definition he was using.

Really, of all the artifacts of the FDR era, Social Security is the one as the major problem for the government having taken up commitments that it cannot meet. That was identified during the 'revolutionary' term of Ronald Reagan (as Mr. Rauch would call it) and not a damned thing has been done to lessen that commitment or set up a system that would see an end-date for the program and allow individuals to find their own way to a good retirement depending on far better performers than the federal government. As a retirement guarantor, the federal government is the least solvent, least capable, most officious and least financially wise vehicle to utilize for this. It has gotten to the point where most Gen-X and Gen-Y have zero expectation of Social Security *existing* when they retire and are planning accordingly. Wouldn't that self-responsibility towards one's own liberty applied to personal happiness and freedom be a good social movement for conservatives to support? That would require phasing out a government bureaucracy which Mr. Rauch and Sen. McCain would see as 'revolutionary' even if it happened over a decade while ensuring all those invested in the system either get their guaranteed support or a lump sum on retirement. Something like that is 'radical' for all the fact it is fiscally wise.

What is interesting is that back in 2000, Sen. McCain wanted to go far further in not returning surplus government funds to individuals. This from Ramesh Ponnuru at National Review on 07 FEB 2000:

The Bush-McCain dispute concerns the non-Social Security surplus, projected (like the Social Security surplus) to be $2 trillion over the next decade. Bush wants to return much of this surplus to taxpayers. His campaign estimates that his tax-cut plan would reduce federal revenues by $483 billion over five years (assuming it doesn't increase economic growth, which would add back some revenue). McCain describes this as "fiscally irresponsible." He wants a smaller, $237 billion tax cut, partially offset by tax increases on corporations. But he wants to spend 5 percent of the non-Social Security surplus to reduce the national debt, and to save 62 percent of it for Social Security. Since the saving has to be done through debt reduction, McCain's policy amounts to using two- thirds of the non-Social Security surplus to reduce the debt.

Why 62 percent? McCain says he's making good on President Clinton's 1999 promise to devote 62 percent of the surplus to Social Security. Actually, McCain's going much further than Clinton: The president was referring to 62 percent of the total surplus of $4 trillion. McCain's talking about using the entire $2 trillion Social Security surplus, plus 62 percent of the $2 trillion non-Social Se curity surplus: a whopping $760 billion difference.

Clinton's promise was widely seen as a ploy to block tax cuts, and House Republicans might be expected to side with Bush rather than Clinton or McCain-with tax cuts rather than debt reduction. Yet in early January, House Speaker Denny Hastert announced that paying down the debt would be a priority for Republicans this year. He also made a long-term commitment: "We are putting together a plan to pay off all of our nation's debt so that our children will inherit a debt-free country." Only small tax cuts- relief from the marriage penalty and expanded educational savings accounts-are on the agenda.

Yes, Sen. McCain is in the 'fiscal responsibility' area to the point where reducing the debt is more important than getting money back to the citizenry. That is the part of economics that the supply-siders got right: increase the amount individuals can retain and the economy grows faster than the debt burden *if* you can reign in government spending. That logic had worked to the point of getting a *surplus* even when Congressional Republicans (they were in charge then) went on a spending binge that made Democrats green with envy. Even though I applaud Sen. McCain's going after the corrupting influence of earmarks, the larger problem of rampant REGULAR government spending is something he has never addressed... or even worse, if he has done so he has been incapable of swaying members of Congress from *either party* on his views.

Then there is Sen. McCain's support of big business and the MSM over the individual as seen during the attempts to de-regulate low power FM broadcasters for local communities and neighborhoods. On 26 APR 1999 TV Digest with Consumer Electronics published this view from the Senator:

Other legislators at convention said there was little support in Congress for raising TV ownership caps. McCain addressed NAB via satellite, staying in Washington to introduce Senate resolution calling for use of necessary force in Kosovo. In his taped comments, McCain said he will hold hearings next month on broadcast ownership rules and on how to create "a new Y2K ownership diversity program" that will include new tax certificates --- policy advocated by FCC Comr. Powell, who was McCain's choice for Commission. In speech dominated by discussion of Kosovo policy, McCain criticized FCC for trying for 30 years to remove barriers to entry in broadcasting "with great vigor and a resounding lack of success." He said Commission should "work with entrepreneurial and market forces, not against them," and should use "private sector initiatives in a creative way that will benefit industry participants as well as new entrants." Republican Congress eliminated tax certificate program in one of its first acts after taking over in 1995, although minority ownership levels hadn't risen appreciably when program was in place.

[..]

McCain criticized FCC for failing to acknowledge that "the best entrepreneurial opportunities in the telecom industry aren't in broadcasting any more," and for coming up with microradio proposal. He denounced microradio policy, asking: "What possible diversity interest is advanced, what kind of opportunity is created, by manufacturing thousands of tiny new radio stations in an already overpopulated, transitional market?" He said that if FCC wants to enable more people to share their views, then Web or cable access channels work better.

The point is not to let the federal government determine what is and is not viable for individuals to do. Entrepreneurship utilizing the common airways could offer untold services to local communities beyond music, weather, and advertising, but the extent of what *could* be done requires government to get out of the way of individuals. Yes, personal liberty given a chance to move into new areas of expression can seek their own return, and monetary may not be the only thing driving them as community service channels could be offered by those individuals donating time and energy to support their community in this realm. But you can't get Sen. McCain to sign on to something that just might hurt the large media organizations which can be so easily regulated and pampered via subsidies, grants and tax favors. That is what the final bill reflected (Source: 20 SEP 1999 TV Digest with Consumer Electronics), led forward by Sen. McCain.

And Sen. McCain as a 'reformer' of election finance had troubles with McCain-Feingold long before it got approved. When he started in 1998, he ran into all sorts of opposition that was trying to point out that his bill was an infringement in the 1st Amendment Civil Rights guarantees on the freedom of speech. On 01 MAY 1998 Human Events featured a Capital Briefs article on just this bill:

ONLY THE LONELY: The voice of the late Roy Orbison ought to be echoing in the ears of Sen. John McCain (R.Ariz.) these days. One of McCain's Republican Senate colleagues told HUMAN EVENTS last week that McCain is now"the loneliest man in town"-increasingly shunned by other Republican senators for his promotion of a campaign "reform" bill that would deny conservative groups their 1st Amendment right to communicate with voters during federal election campaigns, and, also, for his attempt to enact a tobacco deal that would result in more than $500 billion in new taxes.

Nonetheless, McCain is still seriously considering running for President in 2000. Says GOP pollster Kellyanne Fitzpatrick, "I still can't figure out what country McCain is positioning himself to run in."

CFR has become the Civil Rights Albatross around the neck of Sen. McCain and has proven to be an impossible thing to do without deeply violating the 1st Amendment. Apparently, supporting the violation of the 1st Amendment isn't worthy of Mr. Rauch's discussion of 'conservatism' with regards to Sen. McCain, which is very strange as supporting of liberty and individual rights were such a cornerstone of that review.

Sen. McCain hasn't had any problems with increasing 'sin taxes'! And has used dishonest figures to bolster that, as seen in a 03 JUL 1998 Human Events article The Myth of the 3,000 kids:

Washington is a city of statistics--and in the battle about tobacco, one statistic has been pounded home above all others: the "3,000 kids" who start smoking every day, presumably at the bidding of Joe Camel. This dreadful image was the oft-cited basis for Sen. John McCain's (R.Ariz.) sweeping, costly tax bill.

McCain himself has used this number incessantly in floor debate and comment to the press: "This has got to do with 3,000 kids every day starting to smoke," "every day, another 3,000 kids will start smoking," and so on. President Clinton, Sen. John Chafee (R.-R.I.) and countless other politicians have used the same statistic, in virtually the same phrasing.

[..]

However, if we check the basis for Kessler's numbers, we find the truth is not what is suggested by such statements. In 1996, for instance, he used the 3,000 figure in a piece that he and others at the FDA submitted to The New England Journal of Medicine. This is a well-respected scientific journal where one has to be more careful about what he says than in slapdash political forums, press interviews or debates in Congress.

In this we do indeed discover that "about 3,000 new smokers each day" come from the ranks of "young persons." So far, so good. If we keep going, however, we also read the following: "For purposes of this analysis, only persons aged 20 years and older are included, as information was not collected on younger persons in any consistent fashion over this time period." (Emphasis added.) Such is the ultimate basis for all the statements about "kids"!

Thus, through the statistical-verbal magic of Kessler and his friends, findings in which no one younger than age 20 was included morph into something dramatically different: From "young people" (in a science journal) to "kids"(in public forums), to subteens with cigarettes dangling from their lips in advertising pictures. The effect and purpose of these changes don't require much comment.

[..]

One cannot doubt that Sen. McCain has used this formula in good faith, assuming the data passed on by such as Kessler are valid. The fact remains that the entire uproar about "3,000 kids" is based on an intellectual con game.

Apparently Sen. McCain is willing to play fast'n'loose with scientific data to bolster his cause du jour, and then it was 'for the children' to get huge taxes on Big Tobacco. That would serve as the basis for the $885 billion Tobacco Tax (Source: Human Events, 12 JUN 1998 ) which would be the single, largest tax hike in history up to that point in time. Sen. McCain pushed that bill even when there was bipartisan opposition to it ( Source: Human Events, 12 JUN 1998 ) due to the fact that getting associated with the single largest tax hike in history makes one look greedy.

The Franks-McCain bill would interpose the federal government in local schools and libraries to censor internet access ( Source: Insight on the News, 05 APR 1999 ). This was not only decried as the federal government trying to censor free speech in contravention to the 1st Amendment and would be struck down by the Supreme Court ( Source: Online Newsletter, 01 NOV 1998). Mind you, it was pushed as 'for the children', like anything one wants to ram through that would limit the civil rights of adults.

Why is it that Mr. Rauch doesn't take a look at the wider issues that Sen. McCain has not only NOT been conservative on, but has been more than liberal on over the course of his career? Is it because of the form of 'conservative' that supports expansion of government at the cost of civil rights under that 'conservative' rubric has a name to it?

It does.

Big Government Conservatism - it holds the 'social values' the liberals have put in place to invest more power in government and increase it continually with less and less capability but much higher cost over time. That is the kind of 'conservative' that Sen. McCain is, and he has been true to that throughout his entire career. Well, perhaps Mr. Rauch hasn't heard of that kind of 'conservative', that really sees nothing that government can't take over in a helpful way, of course.

Just like liberals, only slower.