Glenn Beck. Oh my heck.

Wonkette : Republicans Unleash Hilarious ‘Road To Recovery’ Plan On Embarrassed Public

Wonkette : Republicans Unleash Hilarious ‘Road To Recovery’ Plan On Embarrassed Public

Posted using ShareThis

A Reale Liberaltarian Manifesto

Ms. Reale,

Would you be so kind as to offer us a definition of a liberaltarian?

Sincerely,

Anonymous

Well, hello.

Hello, conservative(ish), white, male, upper class, Christian bloggers!

It is I, liberaltarian feminista!



I think we'll get along just great, don't you?

The Anti-Feds

I think Quarles is right on, though I doubt his opinion needs my reinforcement. My question regards your conception of democracy, Brad. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists debated this question extensively (and there was a lot more on the line then than there is now in this blog discussion). The Anti-Federalists wanted political decision-making localized to the greatest extent possible. Localization was necessary for democracy, they argued. The further away decisions were made from the people, the more democracy became a convenient, merely nominal title. Incidentally, Thomas Jefferson proposed dividing the country into small communities he called "wards." (He must have had a chat with Brother Joseph.) Again, localization of decision-making allows citizens to become sufficiently acquainted with their political situation and gives them a more meaningful shot at influencing policy. At least, that is the argument. The Federalists, on the other hand, emphasized the importance of a strong national government. Above all other goods, such a government would provide security. The country would be protected from international threats and minorities would be protected from the tyranny of the majority.


Certainly, neither the Federalists nor the Anti-Federalists were opposed to liberty. Their differences derive instead from their ideas about what liberty is and what threatens it. (I should note that I am generalizing for ease of discussion. Both the Feds and the Anti-Feds had disagreements with themselves; each member had his or her nuanced view. Nevertheless, they did share general positions. That may go without saying.) Anyway, the Anti-Federalists stress that democracy is itself only when the governed are able to participate in their government in a meaningful way. What meaningful participation is exactly is not self-evident, but they are clear that it cannot occur unless government is localized.


For the Federalists, democracy must be restrained if liberty is to be preserved. They reason that "the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint." It is the job of the elites, the enlightened statesmen, to "refine and enlarge the public views" so that the will of the people might be in accordance with reason and justice. This process of refinement appears to be antithetical to the dictates of justice according to the Anti-Federalists. Liberty and justice require that the will of the people be mirrored, not filtered (and thereby critiqued and checked). The Federalists respond by claiming that liberty is of little worth without security from the masses, domestic and international. Indeed, the preeminence of security is one of the leitmotifs of the Federalist Papers. Hamilton continually refers to the universal baseness of men as a threat to national (and therefore state and individual) security. The intent of the references is to convince Americans of their need for government to protect them from the dangerous caprice of their neighbors next door and abroad.


The question seems to be that we choose between a paternal government or a subservient one. Do we give up decision-making power completely to the leaders we elect because of the sophistication required to make good decisions? Or do we ask our leaders to tell us how they see it, but ultimately let us decide? Are we Anti-Feds or Feds?

"Us"

This post is intended to further illustrate Austin's thoughts, as well as a previous response to a question I posed.

Wrote Austin:

"What sense is left in a system where uninformed people mindlessly vote for whichever pretty-faced candidate fit the most key words (change, hope, middle class families, etc) into their pre-packaged and processed prime-time interview?"

Consider Austin's words in relation to a brief dialogue I had with Randal Quarles, former treasury undersecretary to President Bush. During a Q&A session Mr. Quarles' held after he gave the keynote address at a private equity conference, I asked, "From your experience in the federal government, what is the greatest obstacle to political progress in [economic] issues?" After a ten second pause he replied, "Us." Mr. Quarles went on to explain that the government is full of good people, trying to do a good job. What makes things difficult and consequently ineffective, he explained, is that we don't know what the hell is going on, and we end up pushing (directly or indirectly) our elected representatives into making dumb decisions or not making any substantive progress by voting based on simplistic, oftentimes erroneous premises. Of course, we would hope that statesmen would possess sufficient integrity and such unequivocal commitment that they would always do what is right and what works. This is certainly ideal, but to systematically expect this sort of behavior is extremely unwise.

Call it Parkins's Law or the path of least resistance, but we must acknowledge that aspiring politicians will get votes in the easiest, simplest ways possible, whether that means adopting simplistic "yes or no" or "more or less" positions, or retaliating against opponents to shift the campaign focus to issues irrelevant to economic or social value. We can make getting elected as easy or as hard, as focused or as distracted, as reasonable or as ridiculous as we want it to be. If the political process in the United States is in any way not going the way we'd like it to go, it is absolutely our fault as voters. Democratic elections are enormously powerful mechanisms of excellence. If only we care enough about how this country is run, we can set the standard for being elected and subsequently reelected as high as we want. These people are certainly capable. So I think we should do it.

Also, I should probably explain my reasoning for including President Bush in my post. Listening to 99% of people I know talk about politics motivates me to electrocute myself, and a great deal of that motivation stems from flippant criticism of President Bush.

My opinion is that judgments you make on people's decisions should be supported by equivalently strong evidence. Saying that someone (a President) made a stupid decision is not justified if your evidence is that, after the fact, negative unintended consequences transpired. I suppose you can say that, but if you consider someone stupid because he or she cannot accurately predict adoption of policy and retaliation of policy, you are intellectually ridiculous. I am of course, in this context, referring to our failure to predict the unfortunate rejection:adoption ratio of the Iraqi civilians and politicians, as well as the dreadful retaliation:accommodation ratio of the insurgents, the Iranians, and others with incompatible interests. If you think you would have accurately predicted it, you're a liar. Contemporary military strategy is composed of entirely new hypotheses.

Whether President Bush made poor decisions or not, the fact is that he is refreshingly distinct from most every other existing and aspiring politician. His point of differentiation is that, ultimately, he did not make decisions based on what everyone simplistically provoked him to do. I find it disappointing that soon after Iraq became a challenge the official position of the Democratic Party became: If you commit to something but then unexpected difficulties arise, BAIL! Leverage these unexpected difficulties by calling them manifestations of bad policy! In President Obama's case, use the war to create a position for yourself that will get you elected, but then don't make one substantive change in policy or strategy once you're in power.

Cowards.

The same goes for how we 'treat' terrorists. Many disapprove of the tactics the Bush administration promoted to keep us safe. All I can say is that if you are a part of this constituency, I'm glad you don't have the ear of Secretary Gates. Sure, it is horrendous to consider any violence imposed upon any human being, but what constitutes persuasion varies among the human race. As the graphic asserts, like it or not, we have been safe ever since 9-11. This fact denotes either insufficient motivation on the part of our enemies or sufficient protection on the part of the past administration. In summation, there is something to be said for the few who are willing to do what is ugly and unpopular, but also right.

My hope is that we will seek out these types of individuals to make these types of decisions, and for the rest of them, that we will at least significantly raise the bar for election and subsequent reelection.

dada politics

in the early 1900's there was an "anti-art" movement called dada art that had the aim of exposing the senseless nature of the bourgeois attitudes of the time and the intellectual culture that had led to world war 1. in this movement, practitioners would make works of art that were as absurd and senseless as possible.

some of the enduring classics we have from this time are the following:









and my personal favorite, "this is not a pipe"










i suggest that its a good time for a dada politics movement. what sense is left in a system where uninformed people mindlessly vote for whichever pretty-faced candidate fit the most key words (change, hope, middle class families, etc) into their pre-packaged and processed prime-time interview? how 'bout when politicians dodge any actual issues when they're running and get people totally psyched about really bad ideas that sound fun (gas tax holiday anyone?) or when so many votes are divided neatly across party lines becuase nobody even reads bills, they just know if its a blue one or a red one. mr universe / action movie star for governor? great idea - that's a face we recognize.

in order to expose the absurdity of our current system, i propose the beginning of a dada politics movement. i suggest we campaign to get any of the following people in national office:

mike tyson
jack bauer
princess zelda
mr. t
one of the muppets
ike spencer
this guy
conan o'brien
hillary clinton... oh wait...
dwight shrute
miss teen south carolina
or this kid

maybe then we can realize that the people who look and sound real nice might not always be the best for our country, and that real issues are more important than the stupid political games everybody plays.

austinrory hackett

Posting Post

This afternoon I humbly accepted the offer to a posting post on this renowned blog. I thank Brad for the opportunity as well as the massive amount of aimless individuals who have spent numberless hours creating unread blogs all across the world.

My first post will be dedicated to the idea of fairness. Undoubtedly, fairness is an indispensable word in politics. It is one of the many ambiguous abstractions that provide political scientists with something to endlessly debate about. Fortunately, there are very few of us that publicly declare a stubborn allegiance to unfairness. We are all inclined to support policies we think are fair. The debate, of course, is about what fairness looks like, not whether we should work towards it.

I think Brad is right concerning the intent of most (if not all) liberal policies. They are all about control. This diction, to be sure, is bothersome to those who would support these policies. No one wants to be labeled an authoritarian. No one wants it to be said of them that they are all about control. (Just like no one wants to be for unfairness.) Despite the word's derogatory connotation in the world of politics, it is a sine qua non of government. This should go without saying, of course. Governments are instituted to control society. One might want to state this same fact more positively and say that governments are instituted to protect society. But regardless of the way one might describe this fact, the unavoidable truth is that politics has been, is now, and will always be about control.

This means, by the way, that Republican policies fall victim to the same fate, although "fall victim" may not be the correct phrase. To say that one "falls victim" to something implies a possibility for escape. For any political agent, however, there is no escape from this fact. One cannot simply step out of the political game, so to speak. That is to say, one cannot will oneself to a state of neutrality. We always care who wins in this struggle to control the political world, especially when the struggle concerns the values that are most dear to us.

I've learned that it is not the original sin of political action to have self-interest. In other words, it is perfectly okay to desire to win. That is, it is alright to want to govern (a nicer word for control). Nietszche would say that this desire is inevitable and that it is an amoral phenomenon. How one directs this impulse is up for moral critique, not the impulse itself.

I generally support conservative policies because I prefer the injustices, dangers, and anxieties of freedom to the constraints of "fairness." Exactly what the freedom I prefer is and who actually has it is something I will try to address later. For now, I simply want to suggest that a government (such as Obama's administration and the current Congress) that intends to control society and claims the ability to order things in a way that will produce fairness is kidding itself. Fairness is simply not possible for human beings. This is not, I admit, a reason to abandon the quest to realize it. But it is a reason to consider what it means to hand over so much power to men who profess a divine vision about what fairness is as well as the know-how to produce it. I don't think Obama claims to have perfect comprehension of what fairness is or how it can be realized, but I do think he believes he is more capable of mitigating unfairness than most anyone else.

It seems to me that a fundemental question one must ask oneself when making political decisions is, Are my political leaders capable of alleviating enough unfairness to make the surrendering of a portion of freedom worthwhile? I should add that it is not always personal freedom that is lost (it might be someone else's).

I plan to blog on the valuation of abstract goods like freedom and fairness at another time.

Charity & Control

There shall be allowed as a deduction any charitable contribution (as defined in subsection (c)) payment of which is made within the taxable year.
-§ 170. Charitable, etc., contributions and gifts

Within President Obama's suggested budget is a proposal to end tax deductions for charitable donations.

The governing principle of policies formulated and executed by Democrats is control. The pursuit of control is manifest by that which lawmakers seek to both offer and obtain. Democrats identify problems and then create solutions for such problems. These solutions are control mechanisms - they control the poor by offering programs that generically and minimally solving problems; they control the rich by obtaining revenues that, in most cases, come from work, wit, risk, and luck (all of which entitle the individual to the potential reward).

This newest twist, ending tax deductions for charitable donations, is the latest and perhaps the ugliest manifestation of the pursuit of control. President Obama believes the projected $9 billion will be more effectively and more appropriately spent by him than by the individuals who earned it. Surely his justification will be the present economic crisis. Perhaps he will appeal to the roads that must be built, the health records that must be electronic, or the buildings that must be green. Whatever excuse his speechwriters find most politically agreeable, the governing principle is control.

Reading & Outrage

"No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law."
-Article I. § 9

Congress last month passed a bill that President Obama signed into law, allowing AIG executives to keep their bonuses. The bill included an amendment from Senator Chris Dodd to limit executive bonuses strictly, but it included an exemption for bonuses agreed to "on or before February 11, 2009." That allowed AIG to proceed with the bonuses.

Congress yesterday expressed outrage upon learning that the bonuses had been distributed.

What did this story reveal?

1. Dishonesty - Sen. Dodd denied knowledge of the exemption on Tuesday, then was forced to admit that he, himself, drafted the exemption on Wednesday.
2. Victimization - Sen. Dodd blamed the Obama administration for pressuring him to include the exemption; Pres. Obama, at a town hall meeting, said: "The buck stops with me; I'm the president...(moments later)..."We didn't draft these contracts; we've got a lot on our plate."
3. Hypocricy - The Senate Finance Committee dragged AIG CEO Edward Libby to Washington, so that they could unfairly grill him for distributing the bonuses WHICH THEY AGREED COULD BE DISTRIBUTED WHEN THEY VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE BILL THAT INCLUDED THIS EXEMPTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As my use of elite caps indicates, what most upsets me about this whole situation is that congress votes in favor of a bill and then a month later expresses outrage at a provision within the same bill.

To me this suggests indolence or incompetence. Either congressmen are not reading the bills they are voting on, or they are incapable of comprehending what they are reading.

I wish Libby would have grown some stones and lashed back at the hypocritical congressmen who told him he could do something and then condemned him for doing it.

The fact that Barney Frank angrily demanded the names of those who accepted the bonuses is UNBELIEVABLE. Rep. Frank agreed that those particular executives should receive their scheduled bonuses, and now he wants them to be publicly shamed for their greed.

Every American, especially the AIG executives, should be outraged at our joke of a congress.

Our lawmakers must be made accountable for what they lie about and what they fail to read.