The nature of the enemy

The following is a whitepaper of The Jacksonian Party.

On the Laws of War and Peace by Hugo Grotius, Book I, Chapter 3 (Source: Constitution.org):

I. THE first and most necessary divisions of war are into one kind called private, another public, and another mixed. Now public war is carried on by the person holding the sovereign power. Private war is that which is carried on by private persons without authority from the state. A mixed war is that which is carried on, on one side by public authority, and on the other by private persons. But private war, from its greater antiquity, is the first subject for inquiry.

The proofs that have been already produced, to shew that to repel violence is not repugnant to natural law, afford a satisfactory reason to justify private war, as far as the law of nature is concerned. But perhaps it may be thought that since public tribunals have been erected, private redress of wrongs is not allowable. An objection which is very just. Yet although public trials and courts of Justice are not institutions of nature, but erected by the invention of men, yet as it is much more conducive to the peace of society for a matter in dispute to be decided by a disinterested person, than by the partiality and prejudice of the party aggrieved, natural justice and reason will dictate the necessity and advantage of every one's submitting to the equitable decisions of public judges. Paulus, the Lawyer, observes that "what can be done by a magistrate with the authority of the state should never be intrusted to individuals; as private redress would give rise to greater disturbance. And "the reason, says King Theodoric, why laws were invented, was to prevent any one from using personal violence, for wherein would peace differ from all the confusion of war, if private disputes were terminated by force?" And the law calls it force for any man to seize what he thinks his due, without seeking a legal remedy.

[..]

IV. Public war, according to the law of nations, is either SOLEMN, that is FORMAL, or LESS SOLEMN, that is INFORMAL. The name of lawful war is commonly given to what is here called formal, in the same sense in which a regular will is opposed to a codicil, or a lawful marriage to the cohabitation of slaves. This opposition by no means implies that it is not allowed to any man, if he pleases, to make a codicil, or to slaves to cohabit in matrimony, but only, that, by the civil law, FORMAL WILLS and SOLEMN MARRIAGES, were attended with peculiar privileges and effects. These observations were the more necessary ; because many, from a misconception of the word just or lawful, think that all wars, to which those epithets do not apply, are condemned as unjust and unlawful. Now to give a war the formality required by the law of nations, two things are necessary. In the first place it must be made on both sides, by the sovereign power of the state, and in the next place it must be accompanied with certain formalities. Both of which are so essential that one is insufficient without the other.

Now a public war, LESS SOLEMN, may be made without those formalities, even against private persons, and by any magistrate whatever. And indeed, considering the thing without respect to the civil law, every magistrate, in case of resistance, seems to have a right to take up arms, to maintain his authority in the execution of his offices; as well as to defend the people committed to his protection. But as a whole state is by war involved in danger, it is an established law in almost all nations that no war can be made but by the authority of the sovereign in each state. There is such a law as this in the last book of Plato ON LAWS. And by the Roman law, to make war, or levy troops without a commission from the Prince was high treason. According to the Cornelian law also, enacted by Lucius Cornelius Sylla, to do so without authority from the people amounted to the same crime. In the code of Justinian there is a constitution, made by Valentinian and Valens, that no one should bear arms without their knowledge and authority. Conformably to this rule, St. Augustin says, that as peace is most agreeable to the natural state of man, it is proper that Princes should have the sole authority to devise and execute the operations of war. Yet this general rule, like all others, in its application must always be limited by equity and discretion.

Here, centuries before our time, is a direct addressing of our problems in our day of the enemy we face. Hugo Grotius quickly dispenses with those who think that because warfare is unjust in its execution, that being the mayhem of the fields of battle and the rampant destruction of life with no court nor magistrate, it therefore must be unjust and unlawful. That is, however, incorrect as, to have a State, the ability to wage war to defend that State is paramount. As we, in lawful times, prefer disputes to be settled by reason and appeal to impartial judges, we find that reason and impartiality cannot be gained between Nations: any Nation or group attempting to render such a decision would have their own futures to consider and that would give immediate bias to even the most isolated and peace loving of peoples.

When we join together to form a State with a National system to interact with other Nations and to perform justice within Nations, we, as private individuals, give up the right of making personal war and settling things by rule of might. Between Nations there can be no hand-off of that responsibility to any other group as the Nation is made for the self-guidance and protection of her people. Putting that Sovereignty entrusted into the Nation into the hands of any other Nation, group of same or individual is putting the opportunity for rank injustice to be done to those in the Nation giving up such power. The lawful way for Nations to interact short of warfare is called Diplomacy, and Diplomacy has a limit to it where the vital interests of the Nation are at stake. Private war, then, is a liberty from the law of nature that we relinquish to a greater good for our Nation and to be protected by the Sovereign government (be it Monarch, Council, Prime Minister or President). While internal laws rest upon the powers relinquished to the State to form a Nation, treaties between Nations are adhered to by each Nation ensuring that other Nations keep to such treaties.

When an individual takes up Private war to execute war against other individuals or Nations and without having any Sovereign authority as a Nation backing them, they are then taking up arms not against just those they attack, but of all Nations. By taking up the law of nature again, the trust between individuals and their State to utilize war in self-defense for all of those in the Nation is put at risk. No individual relinquishes the right to defend themselves from unwarranted attack: no law made may say otherwise as the individual is always at liberty to defend themselves for survival purposes. Even immediate counter-attack to drive off such attackers is fully legitimate for an individual, beyond that, however, the legal processes of the State must intervene to look at the type and strength of original attack and organize defenses beyond that of the individual. From simple law enforcement against common criminal to military mobilization for a threat against the State, those are the just and proper ways to defend society.

In Book II, Chapter 22:

XI. But neither the independence of individuals, nor that of states, is a motive that can at all times justify recourse to arms, as if all persons INDISCRIMINATELY had a natural right to do so. For where liberty is said to be a natural right belonging to all men and states, by that expression is understood a right of nature, antecedent to every human obligation or contract. But in that case, liberty is spoken of in a negative sense, and not by way of contrast to independence, the meaning of which is, that no one is by the law of nature doomed to servitude, though he is not forbidden by that law to enter into such a condition. For in this sense no one can be called free, if nature leaves him not the privilege of chusing his own condition: as Albutius pertinently remarks, "the terms, freedom and servitude are not founded in the principles of nature, but are names subsequently applied to men according to the dispositions of fortune." And Aristotle defines the relations of master and servant to be the result of political and not of natural appointment. Whenever therefore the condition of servitude, either personal or political, subsists, from lawful causes, men should be contented with that state, according to the injunction of the Apostle, "Art thou called, being a servant, let not that be an anxious concern?"

XII. And there is equal injustice in the desire of reducing, by force of arms, any people to a state of servitude, under the pretext of its being the condition for which they are best qualified by nature. It does not follow that, because any one is fitted for a particular condition, another has a right to impose it upon him. For every reasonable creature ought to be left free in the choice of what may be deemed useful or prejudicial to him, provided another has no just right to a controul over him.

The case of children has no connection with the question, as they are necessarily under the discipline of others.

[..]

XVI. As the imperfect obligations of charity, and other virtues of the same kind are not cognizable in a court of justice, so neither can the performance of them be compelled by force of arms. For it is not the moral nature of a duty that can enforce its fulfillment, but there must be some legal right in one of the parties to exact the obligation. For the moral obligation receives an additional weight from such a right. This obligation therefore must be united to the former to give a war the character of a just war. Thus a person who has conferred a favour, has not, strictly speaking, a RIGHT to demand a return, for that would be converting an act of kindness into a contract.

XVII. It is necessary to observe that a war may be just in its origin, and yet the intentions of its authors may become unjust in the course of its prosecution. For some other motive, not unlawful IN ITSELF, may actuate them more powerfully than the original right, for the attainment of which the war was begun. It is laudable, for instance, to maintain national honour; it is laudable to pursue a public or a private interest, and yet those objects may not form the justifiable grounds of the war in question.A war may gradually change its nature and its object from the prosecution of a right to the desire of seconding or supporting the aggrandizement of some other power. But such motives, though blamable, when even connected with a just war, do not render the war ITSELF unjust, nor invalidate its conquests.

In building society we give space for independence of self-decision and to do that requires that we relinquish the liberty of waging war to the Nation. Not all liberty, as Grotius points out, is positive, and the right for individuals to wage war without a given authority of a Nation to back them, is waging a negative liberty so as to remove independence gained by civil society having formed a State. To take up war is not only unlawful, it undermines the basic compacts of why we have civilization: to create a space for civil independence of action without the peril of Private war. From that all Private war, no matter what is brought up as reason for it, is unjust. And as all Nations share in the ideal of creating a civil space for independence by passing off the negative right of waging Private war, then those who wage it become a common enemy Public and Private as they put both at danger.

It is neither good nor right to confuse wars waged under just circumstances that have gone awry do to the actions of the participants and conflate that with Private war which is unjust from its core. The differences between the blamable and accountable ways wars under just pretexts are waged are wholly different than those who wage unjust war from its inception. The act of waging Private war to enforce an individual or group of same's beliefs upon others via the means of warfare is a taking of independence and liberty within civil society by utilizing the negative independence of Private war against them. From that there is no difference between that taking of independence and liberty for mere robbery, as Pirates have always done, or for the very power of the subjugation and continuation of same via the means of terror during Private war. By trying to show that bad actions during just war are the equal to those same actions taken during Private war is profoundly wrong-headed and a betrayal of the civil space and laws necessary to hold the first accountable to their actions while the latter will account having NO law over them save their own whims. Those claiming such equivalence are either ignorant of the need for civilization to have the right to warfare in the following of National needs, or they are deceitful and wishing to plunge civilization itself into ruin by making those who are accountable by law the equal of those waging Private war to enforce their will upon others with no justification at all.

The Nation of a State is not without means to address those making Private war, however, and in Book III, Chapter 2, this comes out clearly:

IV. Another method of obtaining redress for any violation of persons, or property is by having recourse to what, in modern language, are called REPRISALS, which the Saxons and Angles denominated WITHERNAM, and to which the French gave the name of LETTERS OF MARQUE, and those were usually obtained from the crown.

V. It is generally understood that recourse may be had to this method of redress not only against a foreign aggressor, but also against a debtor, if justice cannot be obtained in due time: but in NOTORIOUS cases, which admit of no doubt, this right may be enforced even beyond the strict letter of the law. For even in DOUBTFUL matters, the presumption will always be in favour of judges appointed by public authority. For it is unlikely that they should GREATLY, or WANTONLY exceed their power; especially when, if so inclined, they have not the same means of enforcing their decrees against foreigners, as against their fellow subjects. Indeed even in disputes between subjects of the same country, they cannot annul a just debt. Paulus, the Lawyer, says that a REAL DEBTOR, though discharged, owing to some informality or inability of the law to enforce payment, still remains a debtor according to the law of nature.

And when, in consequence of a judicial sentence, a creditor, under pretext of seizing his own property, had taken from a debtor something which did not belong to him though it was in his possession: upon the discharge of the debt, a doubt arising whether the thing should be restored to the debtor, Scaevola maintained that it certainly ought to be restored.

There is a difference between the two cases. For subjects, AS SUCH, cannot make any violent resistance to the execution of a sentence, which they may not deem satisfactory, nor can they prosecute any right in opposition to the law. FOREIGNERS may use violent means to enforce a right: tho' they are not justified in using such means, while there is any possibility of obtaining redress in a legal, and peaceable manner.

It is on such grounds that reprisals are made upon the persons and property of the subjects, belonging to a power, who refuses to grant redress and reparation for injuries and aggressions. It is a practice not literally enacted by the law of nature, but generally received through custom. It is a practice too of the greatest antiquity: for in the eleventh book of the Iliad, we find Nestor giving an account of the reprisals, which he had made upon the Epeian nation, from whom he took a great number of cattle, as a satisfaction for a prize which his father Nelcus had won at the Elian games; and for debts due to many private subjects of the Pylian kingdom. Out of this booty the king having selected his own due, equitably divided the rest among the other creditors.

When foreigners who either act in a way in which their Sovereign government cannot or will not address, or independently of all governments, the Nation has the ability to issue reprisals against them without having to declare any war. The act of committing Private war is a grave enough breach in and of itself, that authorization of reprisals are allowed without the greater formality of declaring war. Nations may declare such wars, as the Romans did against many uprisings and invasions by tribes or as was done by the Monarchs of England against overseas usurpers or Pirates. The power of a Nation to authorize individuals or companies of citizens to go after such people making Private war is ancient, and fully necessary as the power of a State to protect itself via National means.

Again, to those wishing to make equal Public and Private war:

VII. But on this, as well as other points, we must take care not to confound the natural and fundamental law of nations, with the civil and conventional law of particular states.

By the law of nations all the permanent subjects, both natives and settlers, of an offending state or sovereign are 'liable to suffer reprisals: but the same rule does not bind those, who are passing through a country, or only residing in it for a time. For such reprisals are a kind of pledges, like public burdens, made answerable for the public debts, from which foreigners, being temporary residents, though owing obedience to the laws, are totally exempt.

In the same manner, Ambassadors, but not those sent from an enemy to our enemies, and their property, are exempt from such conditions by the law of nations. By the CIVIL LAW too Of many countries an exception is made in favour of women and children, of men of letters, and those who are travelling for the purposes of trade. But by the LAW OF NATIONS the goods of all are liable to reprisals, as was the case at Athens, respecting the seizure of persons. In many places, by the civil law, the right of making reprisals is obtained of the sovereign, and in others, of the judges.

By the law of nations the property of all captures is devoted to discharge the debt, and defray the expenses incurred, the remainder of which, after due satisfaction obtained, and peace concluded, should be restored. By the civil law the persons interested are summoned to appear, the property is sold by public authority, and the money, accruing from thence, divided among all who are entitled to a share of the same. But these and other points of the same kind are to be learned from civilians, who are conversant in such matters, and particularly from Bartolus, who has written upon reprisals. This subject may be closed with one observation, that will in some measure tend to soften the rigour of this stern, but necessary right, and that observation is, that such as by not discharging a debt, or granting redress. have occasioned reprisals to be made, are bound, in justice and honour, to make good the losses of those, who have thereby suffered.

One of the fundamental differences between Privateers and Pirates, is that Privateers are seeking to garner the debt incurred by those who have harmed the Public peace. Either via treachery or outright Private war, those granted Letters of Marque and Reprisal are given the opportunity to hurt the property of those waging Private war: as they place themselves beyond the law, their property is forfeit to discharge their unlawful costs that they have inflicted. Such Letters are to make a balance in cost between those that harm the Nation and garnering those costs back to defray the pain and suffering inflicted upon the innocent. Pirates are mere freebooters out for themselves, while Privateers are seeking to enforce the discharge of debt by those who wish to be held accountable to NO ONE.

There is a firm and deep distinction between Public and Private war and its activities and the tools the Nation has at hand to protect its State and its people from harm. Even when the reach of the law via issuing notice of payment leading to the capture and arrest of these miscreants cannot get them, their property, goods, funds and even their very persons are not beyond the reach of war implemented in reprisal for their private actions. The Nation cannot engage in Private war, but it may issue Public reprisals via warfare to let all Nations and peoples know what is being done to confront those attacking the Nation, and that any helping them are also putting themselves at risk in doing so as war is a violent and nasty way to discharge debts.

Some time after Grotius, Emmerich de Vattel would work with others to create a full text of Law of Nations, which would become a founding text in understanding how and why Nations do the things they do. In Book III he would look at war along these very same lines:

§ 1. Definition of war.⁽¹³⁶⁾

WAR is that state in which we prosecute our right by force. We also understand, by this term, the act itself, or the manner of prosecuting our right by force: but it is more conformable to general usage, and more proper in a treatise on the law of war, to understand this term in the sense we have annexed to it.

§ 2. Public war.⁽¹³⁶⁾

Public war is that which takes place between nations or sovereigns, and which is carried on in the name of the public power, and by its order. This is the war we are here to consider: — private war, or that which is carried on between private individuals, belongs to the law of nature properly so called.

§ 3. Right of making war.⁽¹³⁶⁾

In treating of the right to security (Book II. Chap. IV.), we have shown that nature gives men a right to employ force, when it is necessary for their defence, and for the preservation of their rights. This principle is generally acknowledged: reason demonstrates it; and nature herself has engraved it on the heart of man. Some fanatics indeed, taking in a literal sense the moderation recommended in the gospel, have adopted the strange fancy of suffering themselves to be massacred or plundered, rather than oppose force to violence. But we need not fear that this error will make any great progress. The generality of mankind will, of themselves, guard against its contagion — happy, if they as well knew how to keep within the just bounds which nature has set to a right that is granted only through necessity! To mark those just bounds, — and, by the rules of justice, equity, and humanity, to moderate the exercise of that harsh, though too often necessary right — is the intention of this third book.

§ 4. It belongs only to the sovereign power.⁽¹³⁷⁾

As nature has given men no right to employ force, unless when it becomes necessary for self defence and the preservation of their rights (Book II. § 49, &c.), the inference is manifest, that, since the establishment of political societies, a right, so dangerous in its exercise, no longer remains with private persons except in those encounters where society cannot protect or defend them. In the bosom of society, the public authority decides all the disputes of the citizens, represses violence, and checks every attempt to do ourselves justice with our own hands. If a private person intends to prosecute his right against the subject of a foreign power, he may apply to the sovereign of his adversary, or to the magistrates invested with the public authority: and if he is denied justice by them, he must have recourse to his own sovereign, who is obliged to protect him. It would be too dangerous to allow every citizen the liberty of doing himself justice against foreigners; as, in that case, there would not be a single member of the state who might not involve it in war. And how could peace be preserved between nations, if it were in the power of every private individual to disturb it? A right of so momentous a nature, — the right of judging whether the nation has real grounds of complaint, whether she is authorized to employ force, and justifiable in taking up arms, whether prudence will admit of such a step, and whether the welfare of the state requires it, — that right, I say, can belong only to the body of the nation, or to the sovereign, her representative. It is doubtless one of those rights, without which there can be no salutary government, and which are therefore called rights of majesty (Book I. § 45).

Thus the sovereign power alone is possessed of authority to make war. But, as the different rights which constitute this power, originally resident in the body of the nation, may be separated or limited according to the will of the nation (Book I. § 31 and 45), it is from the particular constitution of each state, that we are to learn where the power resides, that is authorized to make war in the name of the society at large. The kings of England, whose power is in other respects so limited, have the right of making war and peace.¹ Those of Sweden have lost it. The brilliant but ruinous exploits of Charles XII. sufficiently warranted the states of that kingdom to reserve to themselves a right of such importance to their safety.

[..]

§ 67. It is to be distinguished from informal and unlawful war.

Legitimate and formal warfare must be carefully distinguished from those illegitimate and informal wars, or rather predatory expeditions, undertaken either without lawful authority or without apparent cause, as likewise without the usual formalities, and solely with a view to plunder. Grotius relates several instances of the latter.⁵ Such were the enterprises of the grandes compagnies which had assembled in France during the wars with the English, — armies of banditti, who ranged about Europe, purely for spoil and plunder: such were the cruises of the buccaneers, without commission, and in time of peace; and such in general are the depredations of pirates. To the same class belong almost all the expeditions of the Barbary corsairs: though authorized by a sovereign, they are undertaken without any apparent cause, and from no other motive than the lust of plunder. These two species of war, I say, — the lawful and the illegitimate, — are to be carefully distinguished, as the effects and the rights arising from each are very different.

§ 68. Grounds of this distinction.

In order fully to conceive the grounds of this distinction, it is necessary to recollect the nature and object of lawful war. It is only as the last remedy against obstinate injustice that the law of nature allows of war. Hence arise the rights which it gives, as we shall explain in the sequel: hence, likewise, the rules to be observed in it. Since it is equally possible that either of the parties may have right on his side, — and since, in consequence of the independence of nations, that point is not to be decided by others (§ 40), — the condition of the two enemies is the same, while the war lasts. Thus, when a nation, or a sovereign, has declared war against another sovereign on account of a difference arisen between them, their war is what among nations is called a lawful and formal war; and its effects are, by the voluntary law of nations, the same on both sides, independently of the justice of the cause, as we shall more fully show in the sequel.⁶ Nothing of this kind is the case in an informal and illegitimate war, which is more properly called depredation. Undertaken without any right, without even an apparent cause, it can be productive of no lawful effect, nor give any right to the author of it. A nation attacked by such sort of enemies is not under any obligation to observe towards them the rules prescribed in formal warfare. She may treat them as robbers,^(146a) The inhabitants of Geneva, after defeating the famous attempt to take their city by escalade,⁷ caused all the prisoners whom they took from the Savoyards on that occasion to be hanged up as robbers, who had come to attack them without cause and without a declaration of war. Nor were the Genevese censured for this proceeding, which would have been detested in a formal war

These texts were well known by the founders of the United States and their drafting of the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and Constitution all reflect these views on warfare. Lawful and Illegitimate war or Formal and Informal war have two entirely different sets of reasoning behind them: one is for the utilization of the Nation to ensure the needs of the State and the other is to meet personal ends via subjugation of others. That is why those who wage wanton and unaccountable Private war get so little benefit of the civilization they have put at peril: they have used negative liberty to erode the civil space created by relinquishing the right of war to the State so that it may be utilized for the common good.

When we look at those that have attacked us as individuals or a Nation without backing by any Sovereign power, we then see a list of individuals and groups going far beyond al Qaeda.

We see the people captured by FARC to render political gains for their own cause. They are the enemy.

We see Hezbollah having killed our Marines and French soldiers in Lebanon, plus staging bombings of our Embassy in Beirut. They are the enemy.

We see HAMAS who have taken Americans hostage in their own fanatical quest for destruction and power. They are the enemy.

The list of these enemies gets longer with each and every group utilizing the weapons of war to kill, capture, ransom, extort, blackmail or just gain pure power for their cause. That includes the IRA, ETA, Japanese Red Army, Tupac Amaru, Shining Path, Abu Sayyaf, PLO, GIA. Many of the worse seek out Islamic causes, but they are not alone and the causes vary by group, but none of them are legitimate as they refuse to operate within the civil arena to air their grievances via lawful means.

They are all traitors to mankind's attempt to build a lawful form of government and regularity of discourse amongst Nations via governments. They put at peril our independence each time they take to warfare to try and expand their power for their own reasons. That is why our hearts cry out for the innocent attacked in Somalia, Darfur, Burma, India, Iraq, Chechnya, Bosnia, Serbia, Israel, Spain, France, United Kingdom, Ireland, Colombia, Argentina, Mexico, Philippines. Very few Nations have not felt the lash of those wishing to enforce their will upon peoples by tearing down the independence garnered by granting the right to wage war to Nations so that a peaceful civil space can be opened.

They are all my enemy. I do not want them to be so, but their actions put them in that position. They can stop doing so and submit to civil authority and justice to find legal means to express their dissatisfaction with the world. At any time they can do so and become civilized.

If we fetishize on one of these groups, to the exclusion of others, we miss the erosion of civil society and the advance of the law of nature via negative liberty to freely wage war and be held unaccountable in doing so. Until they do so they have no legitimate grievance, just a raw lust for power to enforce their will upon others for no reason that will help anyone. And often it is those that they claim to defend that end up being killed in their quest for that power, which further makes their acts barbaric.

Bipartisanship the opposite of good government

Consider a bit of what Congress is trying to get through when you hear about the splendidness of 'bipartisanship' and how it is such a good thing for America. Really, those folks wanting 'across the aisle' agreement should be very wary of what they are asking for. Lets take a look at what Senators Richard Shelby (R-AL) and Christopher Dodd (D-CT) are cooking up there, Upon the Hill (Source: National Low Income Housing Coalition) (h/t: W.C. Varones at Polipundit):

WASHINGTON, DC - Responding to pressure from Ranking Member Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL), the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee appears to be on the verge of diverting funds designated for a housing trust fund for housing for the poorest Americans to pay for Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd’s (D-CT) new program to refinance homeowners facing foreclosure.

In his bill “The Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008,” Chairman Dodd proposes to allow the Federal Housing Administration to insure refinanced mortgages of homeowners who face foreclosure. The Congressional Budget Office estimates this new program creates a potential liability for the federal government of $1.7 billion.

Reports are that Senator Shelby will only agree to the new FHA program if it is paid for by non-taxpayer funds. Senator Dodd’s bill also creates a housing trust fund with resources from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to build or preserve rental housing for extremely low and very low income people. Senator Shelby wants those funds to be used to pay for the new FHA program instead.

All well and good, then, right? I mean if you are 'facing a foreclosure' because you made a bad deal on your mortgage, the federal government needs to bail you out. Right? We certainly need another part of government just to 'oversee' those unwise enough to take mortgages beyond their means, right? And if the poor have to be put at risk as they have little to spend on housing, why that is just fine and dandy! Yes, make sure the poor don't have the ability to *rent* while those who *bought* a home under dodgy finances get away scot-free. Good job! Steal from the poor and give to the rich...

Dick Armey and Steve Forbes would like you to give a jingle on this at angryrenter.com and you, as a non-renter, can also support them against the anti-Robin Hoods in the Emirate of Incumbistan.

Then there is the category of 'we want to pander the public's money so fast we forgot to do our work' end of it, as seen by Michelle Malkin looking at the over-riding of the Bush veto on the Agriculture bill. And stealing from her linked article to the AP on this, there is a feeling of da-daist unreality:

The House overwhelmingly rejected President Bush’s veto Wednesday of a $290 billion farm bill, but what should have been a stinging defeat for the president became an embarrassment for Democrats.

Only hours before the House’s 316-108 vote, Bush had vetoed the five-year measure, saying it was too expensive and gave too much money to wealthy farmers when farm incomes are high. The Senate then was expected to follow suit quickly.

Action stalled, however, after the discovery that Congress had omitted a 34-page section of the bill when lawmakers sent the massive measure to the White House.

Yes, the bipartisan pig trough made it to the President's desk, he vetoed it. Congress, intent on getting the pig trough filled, was set to pay farmers already getting very wealthy off of high food prices even more so that they could be wealthier. Plus extra incentives NOT to plant crops! But, the little, eensy-teensy problem is: they didn't send the entire bill to be signed! Missing 34 pages, Congress now is in the position of trying to pass an incomplete bill...

So the anti-Robin Hood bipartisan coalition shows up and in their hurry to get the taxpayers money to wealthy farm supporters they just forgot a part of the bill. The White House then kindly pointed out that Congress was going to be back at square one and this is how Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) office responds:

A spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., shot back.

“Partisan sniping won’t solve this clerical error that even the White House failed to catch,” said Drew Hammill.

Clerical error? The White House is not in the business of catching 'clerical error's in bills sent to it by Congress. Nope, that is solely the job of Congress.

And people call Bush 'stupid'!

Now if anyone needs some help on oil prices and production capacity, lets step through some basics, so we can get to the latest bit of 'bipartisan' views on this. To help us out we can go back to 1999 and the testimony given to the US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural resources by Steve Layton, President and CEO of Equinox Oil Company, part of the Independent Petroleum Association of America:

Today’s hearing is intended to examine the current state of the petroleum industry. I must say at the outset that I have never seen the domestic petroleum industry facing a more complicated and potentially devastating set of problems than it now does. The industry has faced a low oil price crisis for the past year, but today’s problems are very different and far more threatening than the ones that began the problem.

A year ago, the price crisis was started by a combination of events – the collapse of Asian economies, a warmer than normal winter in the northern hemisphere, and ultimately a market share fight between Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. The events created a surplus of oil in the international market and prices fell. The production most at risk was marginal oil wells in the United States – wells that produce about 20 percent of America’s domestic production, an amount equivalent to our imports from Saudi Arabia. And, I might add the wells from which I make my living.

Now, we have experienced a year of low oil prices – historically low prices that threaten the very heart of U.S. oil production. Domestic oil production is divided into three general areas – the onshore lower 48 states, offshore, and Alaska. The onshore lower 48 states account for about 60 percent of total domestic oil production. The Energy Information Agency has released a recent report that over 60 percent of this onshore lower 48 production comes from independents, a percentage that has increased by ten percent over the past ten years. It reflects an irreversible trend. Major oil companies are leaving the onshore lower 48 states. Particularly since 1986 when the last price crisis occurred, major oil companies have turned their attention away from the onshore lower 48 states shutting in or selling off their production. They have concluded that these wells do not produce the volumes they need to meet the return on capital that they seek. Majors now operate in the United States primarily in the offshore and Alaska, but more and more they are seeking their new production overseas.

Remember, the year is 1999 under the Clinton Administration with Republicans in charge of the Senate. During a period of slack due to the 'Asian Tigers' going bust, plus a warm winter and a race to undermine each other by Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, gas was cheap, oil was cheap and no one was worrying about future supplies, except the Independents. And who was in the catbird's seat for oil prices? Here is a very interesting part and looks at who was undermining the US oil production capability via market manipulation:

In fact, we would submit that Iraq now controls world oil prices. We would submit that the current U.N. sanctions program has failed on two counts. First, it has failed in its primary mission to provide humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people. Second, it has handed Saddam Hussein the victory he lost in the Gulf War. He invaded Kuwait to control oil prices; now he does and he is penalizing his enemies.

How quickly people forget, no? Then he lays out exactly why the IPAA believes this:

First, world oil prices are essentially set by the last barrel sold. A year ago, Iraq exported about 700,000 barrels/day. In December 1998, it exported about 2.3 million barrels/day. By March it will have another 500,000 barrels/day of capacity on line. Iraq was the only OPEC country to boost its oil revenue in 1998. As other OPEC countries have reduced production to stabilize oil prices, Iraq has become the swing producer of world oil. The swing producer sets the price.

Second, Saddam’s objectives differ from other oil producers. He wanted higher oil prices when he invaded Kuwait – money he needed to build his military forces. Now, he can’t spend money to buy arms. But, he can – by keeping oil prices low – punish his enemies, first by reducing the income to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, and others; second, by driving critical U.S. production to be shutdown and plugged forever.

Third, looking purely at demand and productive capacity, today’s surpluses should not drive prices to their historic depths. We estimate that worldwide production capacity currently exceeds demand by about 4 percent.

Now for those who haven't taken a look at oil wells: when you plug a well you can't 'unplug it' to start it back up again. The need for constant pressure and maintenance means that geophysics get to that hole pretty quickly and once its plugged you now have to drill a brand new hole if you want production again. Shutting down wells means that to re-open production requires new capital expenditure. The IPAA was hoping to get some way of keeping production going because of an artificially set low market back in the late 1990's. You didn't hear about that little tidbit recently, did you?

This economic warfare, aided and abetted by US environmental laws and prohibitions on production and drilling, would mean that once the artificially low market was gone, the US would be at a much lower production capacity and there would be economic hell to pay. For those in the 'no blood for oil' camp, this was 'oil profits for tyrants', which is not only no better, but a damned sight worse as it is aiding and abetting economic war under the thin veil of a cease fire. When the prices went low, many of the marginal companies suffered economic problems and the oil and gas industry underwent consolidation.

Then the US Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) was looking at this consolidation as it might lead to 'gouging' of consumers. The Cato Institute looked at this on 24 MAR 2006 which examined the cause of price fluctuations and two GAO reports that had been criticized:

Both studies are problematic. The GAO study has been criticized by the Federal Trade Commission for questionable methodological assumptions and practices. Oxedine and Ward concede that their study is incapable of distinguishing between mergers that create more efficient (albeit higher) prices and mergers that produce market power and correspondingly inefficient prices.

Regardless, even if the studies were methodologically flawless, the effect on consumers (I cent a gallon) is trivial. How then to explain the gibberish on display at the Senate hearing last week?

Only two conclusions are possible. First, the senators on the committee might be unfamiliar with the economic literature pertaining to oil markets and the insights it provides. But many experts have made similar arguments over the last 30years, and the congressional idiocy does not dissipate with time.

This suggests another conclusion: Committee members don't care about economic facts or logic. All they care about is scoring points with swing voters who have a deep-seated religious belief that price increases at the pump are always and forever manifestations of some corporate conspiracy. Pandering to the lowest common intellectual denominator is the name of the political game.

We're not sure which is worse.

Remember, now, this is Republicans complaining about high gasoline prices and not understanding the market. Now, as many of those exact, same Senators are still around as Elder Emirs in Incumbistan, they were also present at the ones on 21 MAY 2008 as seen by John Hinderaker at Powerline:

The last theme that was sounded repeatedly was Congress's responsibility for the fact that American companies have access to so little petroleum. Shell's John Hofmeister explained, eloquently:

While all oil-importing nations buy oil at global prices, some, notably India and China, subsidize the cost of oil products to their nation's consumers, feeding the demand for more oil despite record prices. They do this to speed economic growth and to ensure a competitive advantage relative to other nations.

Meanwhile, in the United States, access to our own oil and gas resources has been limited for the last 30 years, prohibiting companies such as Shell from exploring and developing resources for the benefit of the American people.

Senator Sessions, I agree, it is not a free market.

According to the Department of the Interior, 62 percent of all on-shore federal lands are off limits to oil and gas developments, with restrictions applying to 92 percent of all federal lands. We have an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Atlantic Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Pacific Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the eastern Gulf of Mexico, congressional bans on on-shore oil and gas activities in specific areas of the Rockies and Alaska, and even a congressional ban on doing an analysis of the resource potential for oil and gas in the Atlantic, Pacific and eastern Gulf of Mexico.

The Argonne National Laboratory did a report in 2004 that identified 40 specific federal policy areas that halt, limit, delay or restrict natural gas projects. I urge you to review it. It is a long list. If I may, I offer it today if you would like to include it in the record.

When many of these policies were implemented, oil was selling in the single digits, not the triple digits we see now. The cumulative effect of these policies has been to discourage U.S. investment and send U.S. companies outside the United States to produce new supplies.

As a result, U.S. production has declined so much that nearly 60 percent of daily consumption comes from foreign sources.

The problem of access can be solved in this country by the same government that has prohibited it. Congress could have chosen to lift some or all of the current restrictions on exportation and production of oil and gas. Congress could provide national policy to reverse the persistent decline of domestically secure natural resource development.

Later in the hearing, Senator Orrin Hatch walked Hofmeister through the Democrats' latest efforts to block energy independence:

HATCH: I want to get into that. In other words, we're talking about Utah, Colorado and Wyoming. It's fair to say that they're not considered part of America's $22 billion of proven reserves.

HOFMEISTER: Not at all.

HATCH: No, but experts agree that there's between 800 billion to almost 2 trillion barrels of oil that could be recoverable there, and that's good oil, isn't it?

HOFMEISTER: That's correct.

HATCH: It could be recovered at somewhere between $30 and $40 a barrel?

HOFMEISTER: I think those costs are probably a bit dated now, based upon what we've seen in the inflation...

HATCH: Well, somewhere in that area.

HOFMEISTER: I don't know what the exact cost would be, but, you know, if there is more supply, I think inflation in the oil industry would be cracked. And we are facing severe inflation because of the limited amount of supply against the demand.

HATCH: I guess what I'm saying, though, is that if we started to develop the oil shale in those three states we could do it within this framework of over $100 a barrel and make a profit.

HOFMEISTER: I believe we could.

HATCH: And we could help our country alleviate its oil pressures.

HOFMEISTER: Yes.

HATCH: But they're stopping us from doing that right here, as we sit here. We just had a hearing last week where Democrats had stopped the ability to do that, in at least Colorado.

HOFMEISTER: Well, as I said in my opening statement, I think the public policy constraints on the supply side in this country are a disservice to the American consumer.

The committee's Democrats attempted no response. They know that they are largely responsible for the current high price of gasoline, and they want the price to rise even further. Consequently, they have no intention of permitting the development of domestic oil and gas reserves that would both increase this country's energy independence and give consumers a break from constantly increasing energy costs.

This is not *just* the Democrats who have been negligent on the issue - this has been a bipartisan panderfest for nearly a decade of 'screw them when they are down' and 'bitch when they are up'. Yep, that's America, all right. That legislation didn't get passed *just* by Democrats and there is more than enough blame to go around on this. So if you want the Clowns in Congress to be held accountable: don't re-elect them.

Especially if they have been in there for a decade. There really is no excuse at that length of time *not* to know how things work.

Running the numbers: Polarized America

The following is in no way a rigorous examination of the issues brought up by Nolan McCarty, Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal about Polarized America. I am not a statistician nor do I play one on television! That said, graphs often speak for themselves and sometimes the data presented is not all the data necessary to actually catch trends and analyze them, so I will take a highly biased view by bringing in a few other things that need to be pointed out.

From what I have read the general view is that national politics at the federal level has become more polarized with a heavy trend towards 'party line' votes and less 'bipartisanship' and less 'federal activism'. That is a general trend and one that everyone is pretty much aware of: gridlock. Gridlock means that government can't get much done and that at the federal level this has been an overall trend for a few decades. Of course it doesn't take a statistician to figure that out... In point of fact that is why the American people have been electing one party to the Executive and getting highly knife-edge divided in the Legislative, as the role of the federal government is to have checks and balances and 'bipartisanship' destroys that by diluting the power and ability of parties to present a coherent position with meaningful views on the republic. There are times when that is necessary and I will be pointing those out.

All graphs are modified from the originals.

Some of the eras I will be taking a look at are:

WWI - 1914-1918 - Time span chosen for actual war, although US involvement was 1917-18. This is for some of the effects seen overseas and their impact on the US.

Great Depression - 1930-1936 - The reasoning behind this time span is somewhat arbitrary, but based on the analysis I did in Insurance, Assurance and Prosperity. In truth the actual decline in the economy for the US started around 1927, with 1929 being the year of the Stock Market Crash and the final bottoming out in 1933. From 1933-37 are recovery years and the 1938 Recession was after the economy had already recovered from the Great Depression. Thus I consider the 1930-36 the heart of the Great Depression.

WWII - 1941-1945 - The US time in the war, not the entire war with its run-up by Japan starting in the mid-1930's.

Cold War - 1946-1999 - An argument could be made for 1948, but the chilling in post-WWII camaraderie was pretty rapid and problems were already starting to crop up in 1946.

One of the first things always given by the Left for problems in society is disparity of income leading to problems, so the graph of the percentage share of the top 1% and Polarization in the House, in particular, is a good place to start.

Of most interest is the era just prior to the start of the Great Depression where income for the top 1% was grabbing a larger share of wealth, yet polarization in the House was actually on the decline. Indeed, disparity of income, even as the share was declining for the top 1% did not increase polarization in the House until the late 1950's where the share would reach its *lowest* level and polarization would start to increase. If, according to Leftist views, disparity of income is a cause for civil discontent, then that is not reflected in the political polarization in the House of Representatives. Lowered polarization leads lowering in wealth distribution, it does not follow it.

Actually, as the top 1% of earners suffer a steep decline to a point below 9% of wealth does polarization actually increase. Even with the rapid increase in wealth due to the waning years of the Cold War seeing changes in tax policy, the trend is towards continued and increased polarization in the House even as the share of the 1% is still at a level *below* where it was prior to WWII, with the exception of three years. As that top 1% slows in its overall growth, polarity continues to increase unabated.

This is, from a Leftist view, astonishing: if the richest top 1% have their ability to succeed capped, there is increasing polarization. Trying to utilize 'transfer payments' and 'soaking the rich' then become a leading cause for *disharmony* and political polarization. When everyone is seen to be losing the ability to earn income, as in the Great Depression era, polarization wanes and continues to do so through times of 'national unity' during WWII and the first decade or so of the Cold War. When the rich have trouble getting richer, then things start to go awry. Decreasing disparity from a high, then, is only helpful to a limited extent, and if society starts to close of avenues towards wealth, the political class begins to reflect a feeling of discord and the party ideologies diverge from each other.

One of the difficulties with the data I have seen so far, is that they are inter-party (or more correctly Congressionally relative to those members in Congress) divergences. Attempts to measure what actually *is* 'liberal' or 'conservative' or 'moderate' is all done in the relative associations and voting done in Congress: there are no absolutes in these numbers. That understanding is necessary, especially as inter-era analysis can be dicey, as the researchers point out. With that said the relative breakout for the House is as follows:

Starting with the Great Depression there was a large scale change in US politics as seen between the two parties. The generally more conservative Republican Party started a slope towards the center of the political spectrum. Similarly the highly liberal Democratic Party shifted from the left to the center during that time. For Democrats that would peak, for the party as a whole, in the early 1950's and for the Republicans in the mid-1970's. Southern Democrats, however, would not shift towards a more liberal stance until the late 1960's particularly following 1967. This is reflected in both Houses of Congress:

When the parties are at low numbers there is a high degree of 'bi-partisan' voting in the two Houses. As their numbers approach 1.0 they become more and more polarized towards absolute party-line votes. Again, the late 1960's would mark the beginning of the end for large cross-over votes and by the mid-1970's the trend towards polarization would be an acknowledged fact. This is the point in time where the Republicans trend back towards their more traditional stance as seen pre-Depression, lagging the Democrats by over a decade. For the Democrats that trend towards their traditional stance only comes with the change in the Southern voter outlook in the late 1960's.

At this point I will pull in my demographic trend analysis from History is not inevitable, to see just what this phenomena on the Democratic side is, as it is normally overlooked:

The above taken from US Census datasets.

Starting in 1964 is a marked decline of voter participation in both Congressional and Presidential elections. These are, of course, national trends, but the shift of the two parties back *towards* their pre-Depression era stances cannot be discounted to this cause. Indeed, this may be one of the hardest driving factors for both parties at this time and explain much else in the datasets. Do note that these are not relative declines, but absolute declines as measured against the voting age population.

The most unremarked upon thing in this analysis, across the board, is how much bi-partisanship there was in the Great Depression to mid-1970's: it is uncharacteristic for the Nation as seen from the Reconstruction era to have that much cross-aisle work happening. Having the two party system drift towards each other is not the norm in US politics and it is only the economic and military pressures seen from the Great Depression, WWII and the Cold War that created this sort of voting pattern. Even worse is that a large and growing part of the population actually stops participating in representative democracy. If there are questions about why the polarization happened the startling conclusion is not the growing ideological gap between the parties, but the center walking out on BOTH OF THEM by not voting. This is not a case of the parties drifting apart and leaving the center behind, it is a case of the center leaving the two parties to drift towards their more traditional venues.

The center, by walking out, causes gridlock and stifles the ability of the federal government to do anything.

If this analysis is correct, it is highly disturbing as a representative democracy cannot last without such a large block voting to give the overall system validity. If, say, 68 million people voted in the last Presidential election at ~58% turnout, that leaves 49 million voting age population that did not exercise their franchise right. A voter registration campaign that brings in 3 million voters and can actually get them to vote, does not significantly change that demographic swing. It may influence an election, but that is far less than 10% of those not voting.

What is more troubling than that, and being witnessed this election season, is the two parties fielding presumptive candidates that are, inherently, starting to cause party faithful to waiver. If candidates in both parties cause a minor drop in their own base participation, say 10%, then the percentage voting drops very close to 50%, just nudging over it by a bit. At 15% it drops just below 50% turnout. At that point representative democracy goes from plurality government to true minority government, representing a sub-part of plurality. Even with minority government status being reached de facto for many years, the absolute shift where true plurality of the voting age assent is given is no longer in hand.

Gridlock is actually not a problem but the solution being given by the political center in the US: it is the only ready means at hand to keep the two parties in mutual check so that they can not run an activist government. The ability to actually be wealthy and not have that pathway to wealth put in danger is a sub-marking point of the larger demographic shift by the center. As government is a user of wealth, not a creator of it, the political center is now saying to both parties that what they created during the Depression to mid-1970's is not what is wanted by them, and they are willing to let the two parties drift hard apart from each other by not participating in representative democracy. We hear much from the two party activists, but the quiet and dead silence from the middle is attempting to marginalize both parties into ineffectual stalemate.

This is not a question of a 'third party' being created as NO PARTY will address the need to remove the caps on wealth generation, which is the federal government. Offering more gifts and bribes to the people is getting fewer and fewer votes overall, and that salient point is missed by both parties. Guaranteeing entitlements gets you a slice of an ever decreasing pie, and fighting over it can keep the two parties from trying to take more of the filling out of the pie. This message is not so much conservative as it is 'anti-activist government', as that political center sees no real great thrill in activism to the Left or Right from government as both tend to cap wealth creation by shifting to even out wealth distribution. In our era of everyone Left and Right touting activism, it is a bit difficult to wrap one's mind around a non-activist political party that will slowly remove the ability of the federal government to be activist.

There isn't one of those in the US, at present. So the people who occupy the political center are forcing their solution on two ever more ideologically separated parties. By doing that they are also telling the two parties that their activist message doesn't mean a good god-damned thing to them. If the political parties are polarized it is an effect from the political center that refuses to have anything to do with them. And as neither party can figure that out, it demonstrates the further bankruptcy of their ideologies as they increase in volume and gridlock.

If true, this analysis posits a highly unstable democracy heading towards true minority voting amenable to ever more polarized messages until a very slim marginal difference in turnout means sweeping victory. Not a bang, not a whimper, just ever more shrill and meaningless arguments... that is how democracy can die, if we are not careful.

I do hope I am wrong, very much so, for I do not like that conclusion.

Distinctions between Politics and Politicians

Reading P. J. O'Rourke's latest in Cato's Letter, Spring 2008, Vol. 6, No. 2, The Problem is Politics, was not only humorous in the way only P.J. O'Rourke can be humorous, but it brought home a clean and clear distinction between Politics and Politicians. This is something that has been lost in this campaign season and on a pretty willing basis across the board:

But let’s make a distinction between politics and politicians. Because there are a lot of people
who are under a misapprehension that the problem is certain politicians who stink. They say that if you impeach George Bush, everything will be fine. Or if you nab Ted Kennedy for a DUI, the nation’s problems will be solved. But unfortunately it’s just not that simple.

The problem is not really politicians. The problem is politics. Politicians are chefs—some good, some bad—but politics is road kill. The problem isn’t the cook. The problem is the cookbook. The key ingredient of politics is the idea that all of society’s ills can be cured politically. It’s like a cookbook where the recipe for everything is to fry it. The fruit cocktail is fried. The soup is fried. The salad is fried. So is the ice cream and cake. And your pinot noir is rolled in breadcrumbs and dunked in the deep fat fryer. It is just no way to cook up public policy. Politics is greasy. Politics is slippery. Politics can’t tell the truth.

That is the process of politics, not political tracts written by thinkers and theoreticians. Politics is a process carried out by people and one of the key parts of politics, as a process, is that people are bound to act in ways that is dictated by the process.

Say you have a great chef, using P.J.'s view from above, who works at a 5-star restaurant and has great creativity, can design menus out of thin air, can teach a staff how to prepare it over a short span and introduce new and exciting dishes to bring in customers willing to pay top dollar for that experience. Now, put a sudden downturn in that chef's life and, for whatever reason (and it is very improbable!) the new employment position is McDonald's flipping burgers. That process has no real place for culinary talent and has a strictly controlled and regimented system for producing large quantities of food at a set quality level. In the restaurant the chef is a theoretician, working with what is available to utilize creative skills via his liberty to produce wonderful comestibles. At McD's he is part of a process and no matter how good a chef that is, the position is that of one in a process to output set types of food at a given quality level in a given amount of time.

You don't mind waiting an extra 10 minutes for a grand meal at a 4 star restaurant.

Waiting that period at McDonald's? Customer revolution.

A major distinction between the two parties, and about the only one that is left, is that the Democratic Party sells 4-star menus, and then takes you into McDonald's while pocketing the 4-star money to expand the franchise and sell more glitzy menus and offer the same food while paying the staff at 4-star rates. Republicans usher you in to a very high class establishment tell you they can't offer you 4-star cuisine, hand you the McDonald's menu and you see 4-star prices so that they can expand the franchise, which has a high cost due to all those lovely trimmings which get swapped out as often as the menu used to be changed.

No analogy is perfect, of course, but if your process only outputs a set and relatively low quality of product you find it is hard to sell based on just that quality or quantity alone. On the campaign trail each party will sell what it thinks you will buy: a great menu or a great looking establishment. What you get, however, is a McDonald's hamburger with fries and a shake. By implying quality the process of politics is set up to mislead you into getting the impossible: 4-star cuisine at any price. That is because the process is to turn out large quantities of set quality food to reach a lowest, minimum standard that has some general appeal.

That brings us to the uncomfortable fact that Mr. O'Rourke hands us:

But I don’t blame the politicians for this. Because just think what the truth would sound like on the campaign stump. Even a little, bitty bit of truth. “No, I can’t fix public education. The problem isn’t funding or teachers unions or lack of vouchers or absence of computer equipment in the classroom. The problem is your damned kids.”

Now, that’s just not going to work.

This is the 'Lake Woebegone Effect': where every child is above-average. Every parent wants to *believe* that and if their child *fails* it must be the fault of the *system* and not that of the individuals involved. You want top notch Private School education at Public School? Why? Exactly why and how can EVERYONE get such schooling from a process that is not meant to output such effects? The Democrats want to increase staff pay and the Republicans point to adding bells and whistles.

The problem is, that this is a mass process where the politicians at ALL LEVELS are now part of the process. It used to just be the local and state levels, but the busy bodies and worrywarts from 1958 onwards finally got this 'elevated' to the national level... your local franchise which offered localized menus and servings got changed into McDonald's. And now people have the temerity to complain that the quality went DOWN or, even worse, STAYED THE SAME with a menu they don't like and at HIGHER PRICES? By 'elevating' the problem it was made WORSE and INTRACTIBLE because politicians have no interest in *solving problems* only *offering solutions* and getting more money for government. If education got *solved* an entire part of the federal government would GO AWAY along with all the hanger-on positions, consulting agencies, research departments in companies and universities : all of that would disappear in a puff of smoke for education if the thing was actually *solved*.

By handing off responsibility that parents still have for ensuring a good education for their children to a bureaucracy, they have decided that they are unfit to MAKE THAT DECISION FOR THEMSELVES. You actually can get what you pay for if you go to a private establishment that concentrates on EDUCATION and COST CONTROL, because the immediate feedback of getting paid or not getting paid concentrates the will to educate children. Very much like the hangman's noose, though not as drastic in failure. But you would, actually, get what you paid for and have direct say on what happens if you *don't*. In public establishments, have you seen what you have to go through to get *any* accountability?

There is one way to keep the politicians under wraps in the system, however, and Mr. O'Rourke looks at that earlier on:

I have been covering politics for 38 years. Trust me: we don’t want politics to quit. That’s why we need a Republican president—not because Republicans are good but because we need gridlock. I love gridlock. Gridlock means government can’t do things.

The two most frightening words in Washington are “bipartisan consensus.” Bipartisan consensus is when my doctor and my lawyer agree with my wife that I need help.

Bipartisan consensus—like the stimulus package that has been delivered to us courtesy of Congress and the president. A $168 billion stimulus package that is supposed to change the trajectory of a $13 trillion economy.

Now, even somebody who flunked high school physics—and I did—can tell you that the energy of $168 billion is not sufficient to budge $13 trillion worth of inertia. It’s like trying to use Dennis Kucinich to push Hillary Clinton off the Democratic campaign platform.

We could wind up with a Democratic president. We will wind up with a Democratic Congress. Now, I am a Republican. I’m a rotten Republican quite a lot of the time, but a Republican nonetheless. And as a Republican, I’ve got to say that the 2006 midterm elections made me very upset at the Republicans. I mean, Jack Abramoff, Bob Ney, Randy “Duke” Cunningham, Tom DeLay, Mark Foley. The electorate was almost too nauseated to make it to the polls to vote Democratic.

And this is the problem that the Republican nominee-presumptive *has*: his major claim to fame is 'bipartisanship'. As the way we do politics right now, that awful process of delivering us something of low standard when promising and paying for something better, electing a 'bipartisan' Republican is essentially casting a vote for more expanded government with fewer fiscal controls even if the nominee-presumptive promises in a crosses-his-heart-and-hopes-to-die way that he will veto any budget that goes over, by a single penny, what he asks for. We have heard that *before* in 'read my lips, no new taxes', and yet 'bipartisan consensus' got us new taxes and that from a man who had been Ronald Reagan's Vice-President.

A purely partisan political hack as nominee could get tons of votes just by being a purely partisan political hack because there are a lot of folks who do not WANT 'bipartisanship' from the White House. A bit of the bold, brash 'can't satisfy all of the people all of the time so don't even try' sort of deal. Add some hawkishness like 'hey this government beast needs some limb hacking and here are the Departments I want to disband' and 'the wanted dead or alive posters will be distributed right after my inauguration for every terrorist on the planet' and you just might have someone who could win and bring gridlock. Just so long as it didn't have a whiff of 'reaching across the aisle' to 'achieve consensus' with his or her bipartisan buddies.

Would it take so much for a President to run on the platform: No Omnibus spending packages, No extras tacked on beyond what I ask for, All new 'initiatives' come in separate, clearly defined bills one per initiative?

Of course that would take courage, eschewing 'bipartisanship' and actually requiring fiscal responsibility.

Finally, Mr. O'Rourke sums up his article with this:

After all my time covering politics, I know a lot of politicians. They’re intelligent. They’re diligent. They’re talented. I like them. I count them as friends. But when these friends of mine take their intelligence, their diligence, and their talent and they put these into the service of politics, ladies and gentlemen, when they do that, they turn into leeches upon the commonwealth.

They are dogs chasing the cat of freedom. They are cats tormenting the mouse of responsibility. They are mice gnawing on the insulated wiring of individualism. They are going to hell in a hand basket, and they stole that basket from you. They are the ditch carp in the great river of democracy. And this is what one of their friends says.

It is the rare, very rare, fine upstanding individual that can come away from politics with their ethics, integrity and honor intact as politicians. Outside of politics I like and even admire a few of those running, but that cannot and must not blind me to see what they do as politicians. The 'personal bio' only goes far enough to show that you aren't a crook, thief, con-man, mafioso, chiseler, or serial murderer. Yes, *most* of those get weeded out by the political process... well, I can't remember any serial murderers showing up as Congresscritters, but I haven't looked hard, either. A good bio shows where you start off.

Then they volunteer to become the line cook at the McDonald's of government and they promise to expand the menu and add nice soy protein across the board for our own good.

And these days more than a few of the customers are asking: Where's The Beef?

Appeasement just sounds so nice

Ah, yes, when the President came out with his view on appeasement (Source: FoxNews) it seemed pretty straightforward as he was honoring the 60th Anniversary of the State of Israel (Source: White House):

The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. It is more than a clash of arms. It is a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle. On the one side are those who defend the ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth. On the other side are those who pursue a narrow vision of cruelty and control by committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies.

This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but at its core it is an ancient battle between good and evil. The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men. No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers. In truth, the men who carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own desire for power. They accept no God before themselves. And they reserve a special hatred for the most ardent defenders of liberty, including Americans and Israelis.

And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the "elimination" of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant "Death to Israel, Death to America!" That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that "the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties." And that is why the President of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.

There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history. (Applause.)

Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you. (Applause.)

America stands with you in breaking up terrorist networks and denying the extremists sanctuary. America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapons would be an unforgivable betrayal for future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. (Applause.)

I, somehow, immediately thought of this Zucker Ad:

Hard not to, isn't it? The panel of do-gooders sponsored on a bi-partisan basis. Remember them? The Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group of fine foreign policy panjandrums that have the most excellent and waffling James A. Baker III as one of its primaries, who can't seem to figure out if he is even for or against talking to terrorists and their supporters?

Really, I thought that President Bush's view was pretty straightforward, supported by historical facts in previous meeting with dictators, tyrants, and various less savory folks running their own war organizations outside the bounds of any law. Really this goes back to President Jefferson as recounted by Gerard W. Gawalt at the Library of Congress site on Jefferson's papers:

Thomas Jefferson, United States minister to France, opposed the payment of tribute, as he later testified in words that have a particular resonance today. In his autobiography Jefferson wrote that in 1785 and 1786 he unsuccessfully "endeavored to form an association of the powers subject to habitual depredation from them. I accordingly prepared, and proposed to their ministers at Paris, for consultation with their governments, articles of a special confederation." Jefferson argued that "The object of the convention shall be to compel the piratical States to perpetual peace." Jefferson prepared a detailed plan for the interested states. "Portugal, Naples, the two Sicilies, Venice, Malta, Denmark and Sweden were favorably disposed to such an association," Jefferson remembered, but there were "apprehensions" that England and France would follow their own paths, "and so it fell through."

Paying the ransom would only lead to further demands, Jefferson argued in letters to future presidents John Adams, then America's minister to Great Britain, and James Monroe, then a member of Congress. As Jefferson wrote to Adams in a July 11, 1786, letter, "I acknolege [sic] I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace thro' the medium of war." Paying tribute will merely invite more demands, and even if a coalition proves workable, the only solution is a strong navy that can reach the pirates, Jefferson argued in an August 18, 1786, letter to James Monroe: "The states must see the rod; perhaps it must be felt by some one of them. . . . Every national citizen must wish to see an effective instrument of coercion, and should fear to see it on any other element than the water. A naval force can never endanger our liberties, nor occasion bloodshed; a land force would do both." "From what I learn from the temper of my countrymen and their tenaciousness of their money," Jefferson added in a December 26, 1786, letter to the president of Yale College, Ezra Stiles, "it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them."

Jefferson's plan for an international coalition foundered on the shoals of indifference and a belief that it was cheaper to pay the tribute than fight a war. The United States's relations with the Barbary states continued to revolve around negotiations for ransom of American ships and sailors and the payment of annual tributes or gifts. Even though Secretary of State Jefferson declared to Thomas Barclay, American consul to Morocco, in a May 13, 1791, letter of instructions for a new treaty with Morocco that it is "lastly our determination to prefer war in all cases to tribute under any form, and to any people whatever," the United States continued to negotiate for cash settlements. In 1795 alone the United States was forced to pay nearly a million dollars in cash, naval stores, and a frigate to ransom 115 sailors from the dey of Algiers. Annual gifts were settled by treaty on Algiers, Morocco, Tunis, and Tripoli.

When Jefferson became president in 1801 he refused to accede to Tripoli's demands for an immediate payment of $225,000 and an annual payment of $25,000. The pasha of Tripoli then declared war on the United States. Although as secretary of state and vice president he had opposed developing an American navy capable of anything more than coastal defense, President Jefferson dispatched a squadron of naval vessels to the Mediterranean. As he declared in his first annual message to Congress: "To this state of general peace with which we have been blessed, one only exception exists. Tripoli, the least considerable of the Barbary States, had come forward with demands unfounded either in right or in compact, and had permitted itself to denounce war, on our failure to comply before a given day. The style of the demand admitted but one answer. I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean. . . ."

The American show of force quickly awed Tunis and Algiers into breaking their alliance with Tripoli. The humiliating loss of the frigate Philadelphia and the capture of her captain and crew in Tripoli in 1803, criticism from his political opponents, and even opposition within his own cabinet did not deter Jefferson from his chosen course during four years of war. The aggressive action of Commodore Edward Preble (1803-4) forced Morocco out of the fight and his five bombardments of Tripoli restored some order to the Mediterranean. However, it was not until 1805, when an American fleet under Commodore John Rogers and a land force raised by an American naval agent to the Barbary powers, Captain William Eaton, threatened to capture Tripoli and install the brother of Tripoli's pasha on the throne, that a treaty brought an end to the hostilities. Negotiated by Tobias Lear, former secretary to President Washington and now consul general in Algiers, the treaty of 1805 still required the United States to pay a ransom of $60,000 for each of the sailors held by the dey of Algiers, and so it went without Senatorial consent until April 1806. Nevertheless, Jefferson was able to report in his sixth annual message to Congress in December 1806 that in addition to the successful completion of the Lewis and Clark expedition, "The states on the coast of Barbary seem generally disposed at present to respect our peace and friendship."

One of the sad thing about modern-day Jeffersonians is that they prefer to read his works with an air towards scholarship, rather than his actions with an eye towards statesmanship. The two are not at odds, and Jefferson clearly put forward which side the US would take when threatened by those seeking to be appeased: their demands would never stop and would always increase, so it was better to have war *now* and *cheaper* to do so.

So it comes as a bit of surprise to find just how far those that support liberty and rights have wandered when plain spoken truth is applied (Source: ABC News blog) (h/t: AoSHQ):

In a statement, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., shot across the bow: "It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power -- including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."

ABC News' White House troops point out that the President has made similar statements in the past and Bush did not specifically cite Obama by name, though he did reference Sen. William Borah's immortal reaction upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland and begun World War II, something he has not highlighted in the past.

"(The President) has said similar things before," a White House official told ABC News' Martha Raddatz. "But it is in reference to a number of people, think Carter, others who have engaged in this or suggested it."

And folks like in the ISG Congressionally Mandated CYA group, above. Even more interesting is that Barack Obama's (Source: Allahpundit at Hot Air) doesn't put any pressure or preconditions on talking with Iran and Syria so that 'everything' is on the table as he said in the YouTube debate, just like the Sudetenland was 'open for discussion' with Germany... and then waffles from that on his website. Apparently there is 'nuance' in the air! Perhaps he will only give Lebanon away to appease the tyrants of Iran and Syria. If you are all hope and/or change and you take a tough, principled stand on NO preconditions, then what is it when you shift to something different later?

Are there any principles there at all?

Or will they change in the next few minutes to suit some other group?

And if you are going to 'change', then why not just say you want the EXACT SAME THING the other candidates want and take down the lovely non-difference from your website and say "I'm just like the others in the race"?

Principles guide policy, not the other way around and that is exactly what Sen. Obama is standing for: no principles and 'flexible' policy without them.

You know, it is always cheaper to pay off the bullies and tyrants *now*... and they will always ask for *more* until you finally realize the wisdom of President Jefferson: if the 'military option' is not on the table, then you are just negotiating the sales price of your liberty and those of others. That is not 'saber rattling' but good, cold, hard sense when dealing with those seeking to extort you for everything they want be it cash or national sovereignty. And the US has been far, far, far more tolerant of Iran and Syria than Jefferson was with the Barbary Pirates.

But then, he knew the cost of liberty and freedom which meted out in blood, not cash.