De Tocqueville Quotes

Since my blog title is borrowed from Alexis De Tocqueville's book of the same name, I decided it might be a good idea to actually read his book.  So that is what I am doing presently.  I am not the quickest reader though and after 6 weeks or so I am a little over half way through this 900+ page classic.  I just got through emailing a few quotes from the book to a friend.  After going to the work of typing them out I decided I may as well add them to the blog too.  The quotes are on my standard themes of marriage and religion.  Enjoy:)

Here is De Tocqueville commenting on marriage in America and contrasting it to the situation in Europe at the time (1835-ish; bold added):

"America is certainly the country where the bonds of marriage are most respected and where the concept of conjugal bliss has its highest and truest expression.  In Europe almost all social disorder stems from disturbances at home and not far removed from the marriage bed.  There men come to feel scorn for natural ties and legitimate pleasures;  there they develop a liking for disorder, a restless spirit, and fluctuating desires.  Shaken by the tempestuous emotions which often trouble his own home, the European finds it difficult to submit to the authority of the state's legislators.  When the American returns from the turmoil of politics to the bosom of his family, he immediately finds a perfect picture of orderliness and peace.  There, all his pleasures are simple and natural, his joys innocent and quiet; and since he reaches happiness through the regularity of his life, he has no difficulty in regulating his opinions as well as his tastes.  Whereas the European seeks to escape from his domestic troubles by disturbing society, the American draws the love of order from his home which he then carries over into his affairs of state."

Here is a great passage from De Tocqueville regarding the importance of religion to American Democracy:

In the United States, religion governs not only behavior but extends its influence to men's minds.  Among Anglo-Americans there are some who profess Christian dogmas out of belief, others because they are afraid they might appear to lack belief.  So Christianity reigns without obstacles by universal consent;  so, as I have already said elsewhere, the result is that in the world of morality everything is definite and settled, although the world of politics is given over to debate and human experiment.  Thus, the mind of man never beholds an unlimited field in front of itself; however bold he might be, man senses from time to time that he must halt before insurmountable barriers and test his most audacious ideas against certain formalities, which either hold him back or stop him altogether.  The imagination of Americans, even in its greatest flights of fancy, is circumspect and cautions.  Its impulses are restricted and its achievements unfinished.  These habits of restraint are found in political society and to an unusual degree favor the tranquility of the people and the stability of the institutions they have adopted.  Nature and circumstance have turned the inhabitant of the United States into a bold man;  this is easily proved by the manner in which he seeks his fortune.  If the mind of the Americans were free of all shackles, one would soon encounter among them the boldest innovators and the most relentless logicians in the world.  But American revolutionaries are forced publicly to profess a certain respect for Christian morality and equity, which does not allow them easily to violate their plans;  and were they to manage to rise above their scruples themselves, they would still feel hindered by those of their supporters.  Up until now, no one in the United States has dared to promote the maxim that everything is legitimized in the interests of society, an impious maxim which seems to have been invented in an age of liberty simply to justify every future tyrant.  Thus, while the law allows the American people to do everything, religion prevents their imagining everything and forbids them from daring to do everything.  Religion, which never interferes directly in the government of Americans, should therefore be regarded as the first of their political institutions, for, if it does not give them the taste for liberty, it enables them to take unusual advantage of it.

 That last section in bold is, I think, the key to liberty.  It's message may help us understand more clearly why our freedoms are under attack at the present.  Compare this message to a talk given by Elder D. Todd Christofferson (LDS Apostle) in October 2009: link to talk here.

On China: Paul Krugman vs. Peter Schiff

This will be a long post.  Sorry.  I have included two articles that address the same topic but from very different points of view.  The topic is Chinese currency manipulation and it's effects on the global economy.  I am particularly interested in the disparate ideas between Krugman and Schiff on who-has-who over a barrel in this relationship and the potential impact should China decide to start selling its massive Treasury holdings.  I want to believe Krugman, but my instincts point more to Schiff.  Give both articles a read and let me know what you think.
Paul Krugman, NY Times, "Taking On China":

Tensions are rising over Chinese economic policy, and rightly so: China’s policy of keeping its currency, the renminbi, undervalued has become a significant drag on global economic recovery. Something must be done.

To give you a sense of the problem: Widespread complaints that China was manipulating its currency — selling renminbi and buying foreign currencies, so as to keep the renminbi weak and China’s exports artificially competitive — began around 2003. At that point China was adding about $10 billion a month to its reserves, and in 2003 it ran an overall surplus on its current account — a broad measure of the trade balance — of $46 billion.
Today, China is adding more than $30 billion a month to its $2.4 trillion hoard of reserves. The International Monetary Fund expects China to have a 2010 current surplus of more than $450 billion — 10 times the 2003 figure. This is the most distortionary exchange rate policy any major nation has ever followed.
And it’s a policy that seriously damages the rest of the world. Most of the world’s large economies are stuck in a liquidity trap — deeply depressed, but unable to generate a recovery by cutting interest rates because the relevant rates are already near zero. China, by engineering an unwarranted trade surplus, is in effect imposing an anti-stimulus on these economies, which they can’t offset.
So how should we respond? First of all, the U.S. Treasury Department must stop fudging and obfuscating.
Twice a year, by law, Treasury must issue a report identifying nations that “manipulate the rate of exchange between their currency and the United States dollar for purposes of preventing effective balance of payments adjustments or gaining unfair competitive advantage in international trade.” The law’s intent is clear: the report should be a factual determination, not a policy statement. In practice, however, Treasury has been both unwilling to take action on the renminbi and unwilling to do what the law requires, namely explain to Congress why it isn’t taking action. Instead, it has spent the past six or seven years pretending not to see the obvious.
Will the next report, due April 15, continue this tradition? Stay tuned.
If Treasury does find Chinese currency manipulation, then what? Here, we have to get past a common misunderstanding: the view that the Chinese have us over a barrel, because we don’t dare provoke China into dumping its dollar assets.
What you have to ask is, What would happen if China tried to sell a large share of its U.S. assets? Would interest rates soar? Short-term U.S. interest rates wouldn’t change: they’re being kept near zero by the Fed, which won’t raise rates until the unemployment rate comes down. Long-term rates might rise slightly, but they’re mainly determined by market expectations of future short-term rates. Also, the Fed could offset any interest-rate impact of a Chinese pullback by expanding its own purchases of long-term bonds.
It’s true that if China dumped its U.S. assets the value of the dollar would fall against other major currencies, such as the euro. But that would be a good thing for the United States, since it would make our goods more competitive and reduce our trade deficit. On the other hand, it would be a bad thing for China, which would suffer large losses on its dollar holdings. In short, right now America has China over a barrel, not the other way around.
So we have no reason to fear China. But what should we do?
Some still argue that we must reason gently with China, not confront it. But we’ve been reasoning with China for years, as its surplus ballooned, and gotten nowhere: on Sunday Wen Jiabao, the Chinese prime minister, declared — absurdly — that his nation’s currency is not undervalued. (The Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates that the renminbi is undervalued by between 20 and 40 percent.) And Mr. Wen accused other nations of doing what China actually does, seeking to weaken their currencies “just for the purposes of increasing their own exports.”
But if sweet reason won’t work, what’s the alternative? In 1971 the United States dealt with a similar but much less severe problem of foreign undervaluation by imposing a temporary 10 percent surcharge on imports, which was removed a few months later after Germany, Japan and other nations raised the dollar value of their currencies. At this point, it’s hard to see China changing its policies unless faced with the threat of similar action — except that this time the surcharge would have to be much larger, say 25 percent.
I don’t propose this turn to policy hardball lightly. But Chinese currency policy is adding materially to the world’s economic problems at a time when those problems are already very severe. It’s time to take a stand.

Peter Schiff, EuroPacific Capital, "Paul Krugman Versus Reality":

In his latest weekly New York Times column, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman put forward arguments that were so nonsensical that the award committee should ask for its medal back.

Recent rhetoric from Washington has put the economic relationship between the U.S. and China squarely on the front burner, and Krugman is demanding that we crank up the flame. This week 130 members of Congress sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner demanding that the Obama administration designate China as a "currency manipulator". Following that, a bipartisan group of senators introduced a bill that looks to force the Obama administration's hand. For its own part, Beijing invites criticism by continuing to deny its utterly obvious currency agenda.

As these tensions escalate, most economists urge Washington to tread lightly because of the negative fallout for America if China were to begin selling its enormous cache of U.S. Treasury bonds. Krugman pushes back, asserting that the U.S. risks little by playing hardball, and that China has more to lose. He asserts that a Chinese decision to end its purchases of U.S. Treasury debt would make only a marginal impact on long-term interest rates. Did you hear that Stockholm?

According to Krugman, our secret weapon of economic invincibility is the Fed's ability to print dollars endlessly. If China were to foolishly decide to attack us by selling our debt, the Fed could simply step in and buy the excess with newly printed greenbacks. (In other words, Krugman sees no difference between funding the debt and monetizing it. See my latest video blog on the subject.). For Krugman, China would gain little from such an attack, but would lose the ability to export to its best customer and suffer severe losses in the value of its dollar holdings. Krugman's worldview is reassuring - but it has absolutely nothing to do with reality.

There is a huge difference between selling your debt to another and "selling" it to yourself. When China buys our debt, it uses its own savings. In order to purchase a trillion dollars of U.S. Treasuries, the Fed would have to expand our money supply by a corresponding amount. Even Krugman acknowledges that this would cause the dollar to lose value; however, he feels that a weaker dollar is good for America and bad for China.

Krugman does not believe that a tanking dollar will translate into higher interest rates or higher consumer prices at home. No matter how many dollars the Fed creates, or how much value those dollars lose relative to other currencies, he is confident that as long as unemployment remains high, rates will stay low and inflation will remain under control. This is absurd.

If the dollar were to nosedive, the Fed would normally look to protect the currency by raising interest rates, thereby increasing foreign demand for the currency. But with an economy currently on crutches, the Fed will ignore a weakening dollar and continue to try to boost employment with near-zero rates.

But keeping the Fed Funds rate low only holds rates down for U.S. government debt. If the dollar weakens substantially, other rates offered to other borrowers will rise as investors demand greater returns to compensate for inflation. To keep rates low for homeowners, credit card borrowers, corporations, municipalities, and state governments, the Fed would be forced to buy, or guarantee, all forms of dollar-denominated debt. The Fed would become the lender of only resort.

Once the Fed shows that its commitment to low rates is limitless (the value of the dollar be damned), private creditors will quit the game. Even average Americans would hit the Fed's bid. It would be a race for the exits, with no one wanting to be left holding a bag of worthless paper dollars.

Most economists, Krugman included, see cheap money as a panacea for all ills. And while it's true that a falling dollar, by lowering the real value of U.S. wages, would help make U.S. goods more competitive, it would also lead to skyrocketing consumer prices, rapidly rising interest rates, and a collapse in American living standards. Make no mistake: this is the end game of Krugman's "get tough on China" policy.

This apocalyptic scenario can only be avoided if Washington jealously guards the status quo, avoiding confrontation with China at all costs. Yet, even that is an outcome that no one can rationally expect. Given exploding U.S. government deficits and the inability of U.S. citizens and corporations to repair their balance sheets, the United States faces financing needs that even China's gargantuan savings stockpile will be unable to cover.

Krugman is right about one thing - China's currency peg is destabilizing the global economy and must end. But he fails utterly to understand the implications for the U.S. and China. If China were to reverse its role in the U.S. Treasury market, both economies would be destabilized in the short-term. But in the medium- and long-term, China would clearly emerge as the winner.

Absent Treasury-bond purchases, the value of the Chinese currency would rise sharply, causing goods prices to tumble in China. This long-delayed increase in purchasing power for everyday Chinese will unleash pent-up demand in what is already the largest middle class in the world. Chinese factories would retool in order to produce goods for their own citizens to consume. In RMB terms, commodity prices would plunge, making it easier for China to produce all kinds of stuff, such as automobiles, while also making it cheaper for the Chinese to buy gas. Millions will trade in bikes for cars, and Chinese oil imports will swell.

The opposite would occur in America, where an artificial, consumer-based economy, supported by Chinese lending, will come tumbling down. Without the ability to import cheap goods from overseas, Americans will pay more and get less. While gas and food become cheaper for the Chinese, they will simultaneously become much more expensive for Americans - so too will automobiles, consumer electronics, furniture, and just about every other product we want or need (even those few we still make ourselves).

Washington's best option is to recognize that the current relationship is unsustainable and to plan, as best as possible, for a more viable future. We Americans also must be honest with ourselves and recognize that we have been living beyond our means and that our lifestyle has been largely financed by austerity in China. We must conceive of a plan that weans us from this dependence without provoking China to pull the rug out from under us before we have a firm footing. To construct a policy around Krugman's ridiculous assumption that we benefit China more than they benefit us is to invite catastrophe on an unimaginable scale. 

E Pluribus Unum

This is a splendid little piece by John S. Tanner, Academic VP at BYU.  I was going to post the article then follow with some personal comments, but I think anything I have to say would simply detract from the message.  Link to the article here.

About a year ago, BYU held a campus-wide symposium on academic freedom. The conversation often circled back to the need to accommodate the competing but legitimate claims of unity and diversity. It occurred to me as I listened to the discussion that the issue belonged within an older and larger conversation about how to reconcile the “many” and the “one” in a healthy society. The Founders wrestled with this problem as they set out to form a more perfect union. They captured this perennial challenge in a now famous Latin aphorism: e pluribus unum, “out of many, one.”

This saying expressed the Founders’ aspiration to forge a new nation out of disparate colonies and a new people out of diverse cultures. E pluribus unum resonated with an America engaged in the task of nation building. It continues to resonate with Americans today because it speaks to our ongoing national project of fashioning pluralistic constituents into a cohesive commonwealth.

We used to imagine this national project through the metaphor of America as melting pot, an image that goes back at least to Letters from an American Farmer (1782) by John Hector St. John Crèvecoeur. Crèvecoeur envisioned our nation at its birth as a place where “individuals of all races are melted into a new race of man.”

Today the metaphor of America as melting pot has largely fallen out of favor. It is considered too hegemonic and implicitly violent. Nowadays we tend to reach for metaphors of assimilation that preserve and celebrate our diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural identities—gentle metaphors such as “salad bowl,” “mosaic,” “tapestry,” or “patchwork quilt.” Such metaphors, however, lack the teleology of e pluribus unum. Instead of anticipating progression from the many to the one, they anticipate the continuation of the many within the one. They celebrate diversity rather than unity. In this small matter of metaphors, we can thus discern a larger disagreement over what constitutes America’s proper national ideal: diversity or unity.

As I’ve thought about this question over the years, it has seemed to me that healthy, flourishing social institutions require a mix of both “pluribus” and “unum” as it were. People need room to express individual differences, talents, tastes, and identities. They also need a sense of common purpose, norms, values, and ideals.

This is true of nations and schools, communities and families. It is even true of the church, which consists of many members but one body: “We have many members in one body. … So we being many, are one body in Christ” (Rom 12:4-5). The very term “member” is metaphorical; it harks back to Paul’s extended analogy in 1 Corinthians 12 to the church as a single body comprising many members with a diversity of valuable gifts and necessary functions. Paul’s analogy constitutes a sort of scriptural version of e pluribus unum applied to the church.

BYU also accommodates both individual diversity and institutional unity. A few years ago, we crafted an “Enriched Environment” statement articulating our commitment to diversity and unity for the students we admit. The statement, which has been approved by the Board, reads in part:

"[T]he university seeks qualified students of various talents and backgrounds, including geographic, educational, cultural, ethnic, and racial, who relate together in such a manner that they are ‘no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God’ (Ephesians 2:19). It is the university’s judgment that providing educational opportunities for a mix of students who share gospel values and come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences is an important educational asset to BYU.”

Notice the conjunction of diversity and unity: “various talents” but all “qualified”; divergent “backgrounds” but all comfortably gathered in the same “household”; a “mix of students” but all sharing “gospel values.”

BYU unites individuals possessing both a rich diversity of gifts and a shared commitment to the common good. We gather individuals with different talents, tastes, disciplinary expertise, interests, life experiences, creative abilities, and so forth. We cannot flourish without such individual diversity. We need experts in Management, Mathematics, Microbiology, Music, and even Milton. At the same time, BYU unites diverse individuals in a community bound together by a common commitment to our institutional mission and, for most, by an even deeper commitment to covenants that unite us as disciples in our diverse disciplines. We cannot flourish without a sense of common purpose. This admixture of unity and diversity makes life at BYU wonderfully enlivening for me. We are many and we are one.

The Clash of Orthodoxies

I recently finished reading "The Clash of Orthodoxies", by Robert P. George.  Dr. George describes the clash that is at our doorstep between those who claim the Judeo-Christian worldview and those who have abandoned that worldview in favor of, what he calls, the "secular orthodoxy".  "The issues immediately in play," he says, "have mainly, though not exclusively, to do with sexuality, the transmitting and taking of human life, and the place of religion and religiously informed moral judgment in public life."

In this post I want to look at Dr. George's critique of secular views on sexuality as contrasted with the traditional, Judeo-Christian view.  Professor George is a philosopher.  As such, it might take a few readings of the included quotes to fully grasp what he is saying.  If you take the time however, I think you will find his views quite enlightening. 

Professor George claims that the liberal misunderstanding of sexual morality is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of the human person.  He explains it this way:

Implicit in [secular views on sexual morality] is a particular understanding of the human person as an essentially non--bodily being who inhabits a nonpersonal body. According to this understanding--which contrasts with the Judeo--Christian view of the human person as a dynamic unity of body, mind, and spirit--the "person" is the conscious and desiring "self" as distinct from the body which may exist as a merely "biological," and, thus, sub-personal, reality.

Secularist ideology holds to a 'dualistic' view of the human person.  The body is seen as a mere instrument of the true "self".  The real "you" is your consciousness.  Your body is not truly part of you, but rather an instrument to be used by your consciousness in seeking pleasure and other forms of personal fulfillment.  Thus bodily unity, through sex acts that are procreative in type can never be personal unity because the body is not truly part of the person.  The most that can ever be achieved between two individuals is emotional unity.  Sexual conduct is simply a means to express affection, experience pleasure, and heighten the emotional intensity of a relationship through sex play.  This emotional unity through sex play can be achieved as easily by two men or two women as it can by a man and a woman (or as Professor George asks, "...if it is a purely emotional bond, some ask, why only two?)

Contrast the secular view of sexual morality with the traditional, Judeo-Christian view.  Professor George describes it as follows:

Rational reflection on marriage as it is participated in by men and women makes it clear: since men and women are essentially embodied (and not simply inhabitors of a suit of flesh [contrasting with the secular view]), the biological union of spouses in reproductive--type acts consummates and actualizes their marriage, making the spouses truly, and not merely metaphorically, "two in one flesh." The sexual union of spouses--far from being something extrinsic to marriage or merely instrumental to procreation, pleasure, the expression of tender feelings, or anything else--is an essential aspect of marriage as an intrinsic human good. Marital acts are the biological matrix of the multi--level (bodily, emotional, dispositional, spiritual) sharing of life and commitment that marriage is.

But, one might ask, is a true bodily or "biological" union of persons possible? Indeed it is. Consider that for most human functions or activities, say, digestion or locomotion, the organism performing the function or act is the individual human being. In respect of the act of reproduction, however, things are different. Reproduction is a single act or function, yet it is performed by a male and female as a mated pair. For purposes of reproduction, the male and female partners become a single organism, they form a single reproductive principle. This organic unity is achieved precisely in the reproductive behavior characteristic of the species--even in cases (such as those of infertile couples) in which the nonbehavioral conditions of reproduction do not obtain.

Properly understood in light of a non--dualistic account of the human person, the goodness of marriage and marital intercourse simply cannot be reduced to the status of a mere means to pleasure, feelings of closeness, or any other extrinsic goal. Indeed, it cannot legitimately be treated (as some Christians have, admittedly, sought to treat it) as a mere means to procreation, though children are among the central purposes of marriage and help to specify its meaning as a moral reality even for married couples who cannot have children. [Marital] acts realize the unity of marriage (italics added), which includes the coming to be of children.

In the Judeo-Christian tradition bodily, sexual union is personal union.  Since the body is not seen as a mere instrument of the conscious and desiring "self", sex cannot be reduced to a means of pleasure seeking, expressing affection, or even to the begetting of children.  It is properly viewed as a biologically unifying act that forms the foundation of a multi-level (biological, spiritual, emotional, etc.) sharing of life between two individuals.  As I have noted in a previous post, this view helps to make sense of the consummation requirement that is part of the legal tradition of all western civilizations.  Short of a sex act that was procreative in type, the marriage of a couple was not viewed as legally complete since it lacked the biological unity that was seen as an essential element of a completed marriage.

Why is the liberal view on sexuality so damaging?  Because it is a lie.  And like all lies, once it is accepted it leads to other lies.  Liberal views on abortion are a natural outgrowth of their views on sexual morality.  They want sexuality to be an innocent pleasure, but they cannot hide from the fact that quite often, sexual behavior manifests its biologically unitive characteristic in the creation of new life.  Rather than recognizing the error of their ways, they claim that the fetus (while human) is not yet a person (lacking the conscious and desiring aspect to qualify as a 'self').  Thus, it is not due full respect under the law and can be discarded at the mother's whim.  The mother, buying into the secular lie, is often faced with tremendous guilt following an abortion because she senses the lie at some level of her soul.  Once again, rather than acknowledging the lie, secularists hope that by repeating the lie often enough and loud enough, the guilt will be removed.

Sexual activity is immoral, secularists claim, only when it is non-consensual or when the consenting persons do not take proper precaution to avoid unwanted pregnancy or disease.  When presented with evidence of continued unwanted pregnancies, disease, and the emotional distress that are a natural outgrowth of their secular dogma (and this in spite of their best efforts to promote safe-sex and abortion as necessary), they blame it on 'Christian Fundamentalists'.  These problems are easily solved, they claim.  If Christians would stop blocking secular policy efforts and join the secularists in advocating abortion and safe-sex practices, individuals could continue to enjoy the free and easy pleasures of sex without the unpleasant side-effects.

What if secularists achieved their goals?  What if all of humanity joined in the crusade to make sex the innocent pleasure that secularists want it to be?  What if abortion put an end to all unwanted pregnancy, and safe-sex was practiced so perfectly that sexually transmitted disease was completely eradicated (actually if safe-sex was practiced perfectly I suppose there would be no need for abortion)?  Would we have reached the state of sexual nirvana where we could have our proverbial cake and eat it too?  Dr. George thinks not:

The psychosomatic integrity (i.e. mind/body unity) of the person is another of the basic or intrinsic goods of the human person. This integrity is disrupted in any sexual act that lacks the common good of marriage as its central specifying point. Where sex is sought purely for pleasure, or as a means of inducing feelings of emotional closeness, or for some other extrinsic end, the body is treated as a sub--personal, purely instrumental, reality. This existential separation of the body and the conscious and desiring part of the self serves literally to dis--integrate the person. It takes the person apart, disrupting the good of acting as the dynamically unified being one truly is.

Did our Christian forebears invent this idea of integrity? Did they dream up the notion that sexual immorality damages integrity by dis--integrating the person? No. Christianity has had, to be sure, a very important role in promoting and enhancing our understanding of sexual morality. But in the dialogues of Plato and the teachings of Aristotle, in the writings of Plutarch and the great Roman stoic Musonius Rufus, and, of course, in Jewish tradition, one can find the core of this central, important teaching about the way sex is so central to integrity, and therefore so central not only to us as individuals but to us as a community. Disintegrated, individual human beings cannot form an integrated community.

Individuals who are 'disintegrated' will be incapable of then integrating with other individuals to form lasting families, and communities that are necessary to the functioning of a free society.  The truth of this claim is most easily witnessed in those countries where state sponsored welfare is most prevalent.  Is it any coincidence that those countries that are most heavily dependent on the government to provide for basic welfare needs are also those countries most entrenched in secular orthodoxy?  As the voluntary forms of social bonding and support break down, it falls to the state to perform these welfare functions.  Once again, rather than recognize that this unfortunate result is the natural consequence of secular ideology, secularists pretend that state sponsored welfare is 'enlightened' and 'desired.'  This socialist dream, which sounds so wonderful in theory, does not look so rosy when viewed in the light of history. Perhaps it is this destructive state that the leaders of my faith had in mind when they said:

"We warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

Am I a Glenn-Beck-ificator Too?

So I got in a debate with some libertarian-types who were bemoaning the state of our country.  "How did we get here?", they ask.  "If we could just pull the government out of everything then our creative abilities would be set free to solve everything and we would reach the state of libertarian nirvana!"  So I pitched my now fairly firm belief that this is IMPOSSIBLE unless we start rebuilding the family and other institutions to take care of the social welfare needs of society.  Something has to take its place!  I added a bit about my view that social liberalism and its views on sexuality (I think I called it sexual anarchy in the debate) are incompatible with a free society.  Social liberalism participates in the destruction of families, churches and other institutions that HAVE to be strong if we ever hope to get off the government teat.  Here was Smitty's response:

SMITTY:You're a Fruit-Bat. What a bunch of Bunk. No wonder Mormons are persecuted... the sh** you're peddling doesn't square with reality.

You just invent non-sense to square with your non-sensical views. You just throw around terms; 'Leftist', 'Liberalism', 'Welfarism'... you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. This is the Glenn Beck-ification of American discourse. You just talk sh**.

Individualism is what the US is all about. Just because one is individualistic doesn't mean that they are anarchists.

The Government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.. and sexual morality laid down by Mormons, would be a pretty comical, but deserving fate, for an America that would subscribe to your vacuous prattling.

Who are you, to be fit to determine what a 'norm' or a 'standard' would be?... You believe in 'fairy tales'... and follow a Religion invented by a two bit Con Man...

Anyone who brings 'sexual morality' and 'family values' into a conversation about the Constitution, is clearly a Dogmatic Bunko Salesman.

The Pea-Brains that are proliferating at an alarming rate...who follow to the nit-wittery that you subscribe to, are the primary reason the United States is becoming a laughing stock.


SAM: Pretty good for an ad hominem attack Smitty but you didn't even address anything I talked about, and I don't even think you tried to understand what I am saying.

In his initial post Occam despaired the loss of the constitution due to the fact that the government is doing too much for us now. A HUGE chunk of that is related to social welfare expenses. I see a direct connection between the breakdown of institutions such as the family, the church, community institutions and the rise of the government to fill those roles. Maybe that is a stretch...it seems pretty obvious to me. Anyone who wants to advocate a decline in government expenditure on welfare, but not propose anything to fill the void is kidding themselves. I'm proposing some things that are necessary to fill the void.

I'm all for an 'individualistic' society. Fine. But there are social welfare needs that can only be addressed collectively. We either choose to come together as individuals, or we let the government take over those social welfare needs. And when we give the government control over greater and greater pieces of the national wealth we shouldn't be surprised when they do things we don't agree with.


SMITTY: You post bunk.. I throw To-Mah-Toes... there are no rules.

There's no sense in debating your assertions. You put forth no evidence or logic... you simply make sh** up and present it as fact.

Like everything you post.. it's circular logic.. you believe things.. and you speciously substitute your beliefs, for something that could be debated.

Your POV is not an argument... you offer no facts to be debated.

This is the state of American discourse... people pull stuff out of the a** and run with it, as if it is something for debate... or as if they are seeking some sort of 'understanding'...

Basically, ideologues push their Dogma.. until you the shoot them. would I bother to have a debate with Mohammed Atta? Osama Bin Laden? Pat Robertson? Marshal Applewhite? No. There's no point in debating dogma or faith or non-sense...

You would just keep presenting more bunk.. and more dogma.. and more of your self acclaimed assertions, as being some sort of evidence... it would be pointless.

You get the point.  The more I thought about it though, he's kinda right.  I do just make assertions.  Most of my assertions are extensions of my gospel testimony.  They aren't open to refutation.  Now do not misunderstand me...there is nothing wrong with bearing a testimony or even advocating political postitions based on spiritual testimony of truth.  But, as Elder Oaks reminded us in his speech at BYU Idaho last fall,

"...religious persons will often be most persuasive in political discourse by framing arguments and positions in ways that are respectful of those who do not share their religious beliefs and that contribute to the reasoned discussion and compromise that is essential in a pluralistic society."

Smitty's criticisms of my argument actually reminded me of the criticism that the BYU professors (cited in an earlier post) made about Glenn Beck:

"Most of the books of Beck's I've picked up … are like his manic, ADHD television personality," said BYU political science professor Ralph Hancock. "He's just throwing stuff out there. They're not meant to be read as discursive arguments. They're just thrown out there to try to entertain people who would rather be Twittering or playing video games."
I find in [Beck] a trace of anti-intellectualism," Hancock said. "My interest is to help connect a certain LDS conservative impulse or mood with a more deeply grounded intellectual conservatism. We can't enter the political field with the argument that all the bad, but smart people think X, but we good dumb people think Y."

 So I suppose I am a bit of a Glenn-Beck-ificator...no apologies but definitely a wake up call to do better!

The Constitution is Dead

This is another great post from my buddy Occam on the CommonSense forum with a bit of back and forth as follow up (sorry again for such a long post to anyone who actually bothers to read...It's worth it I promise!)

OCCAM:
Every person elected as President of the United States must recite the following oath.

Quote:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Every president since FDR has utterly failed to uphold this oath.

Upholding the Constitution's sharp limits on government was once a sacred duty for the men who worked in the oval office, even if that meant making unpopular decisions.

They knew that limiting the scope of the federal government was crucial to the continuation of the American experiment. They knew that turning the federal government into a giant money pool would ultimately destroy the freedoms our forefathers had fought so hard for. They knew that, sometimes, they would have to make the hard choices, even if it meant they would be ostracized.

That is why they took that oath.

Quote:

President Franklin Pierce’s 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill read, “I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.”

One cannot even imagine a president today vetoing a reading program for the mentally ill. But that is exactly what presidents of the past did, on a regular basis. Or government, by design, was never meant to be a public charity. But that is exactly what it has become.

On the issue of using federal funds to build up infrastructure, something similar to Obama's recent Stimulus Program, President James Madison had this to say:

Quote:

“Having considered the bill this day presented to me . . . which sets apart and pledges funds ‘for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense,’ I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution. . . .”

Madison could find no provision in the Constitution allowing federal infrastructure projects precisely because no provision ever existed. The federal government, as the founders envisioned, was never intended to take on the responsibility of building roadways or transport. In their minds, these were best left to the states.

The definition for what is allowable under our constitution has shifted so much in the last 100 years that today's federal government would be unrecognizable to presidents of the past.

Today, every congressman goes to Washington with his or her hand out, trying desperately to funnel as much money as possible into their districts. This comes in the form of road projects, bridges, government office buildings, financial assistance, tax breaks, etc.

This system has shifted the focus of our lawmakers from good governance to begging. They beg for campaign contributions so that they can go to Washington, D.C. to beg for money to pay back their campaign contributors. Then they must beg for more to keep their constituents happy, so that they can win another election and beg for more. This cycle is destroying our nation. It is obvious from our ballooning federal debt. And We always want more. But we never want to pay for it.

This is where principled men and women are supposed to stand up and shout "No!" No to stimulus spending! No to health care spending! No to education spending! No to welfare spending!

We want all these things, of course. We think these things will end our reliance on our crappy jobs, or on our crappy economy, we think these things will set us free, free to do the things we really want to do.

But what many do not realize is that these things end up controlling us. Huge swathes of our economy, including millions of jobs, live or die depending on how much our government wants to spend on a particular project.

Our spending through Medicare and on health insurance tax cuts is driving health care prices through the roof, making health care unaffordable to anyone who is not receiving federal benefits.

Our spending on education has centralized control of tens of thousands of schools, millions of teachers, and tens of millions of students into the hands of a few people in Washington, D.C.

Our welfare spending, which we say helps people without jobs, takes money out of the economy, money that could have been used to create jobs for the very people we claim to be helping.

Just Say No

It is time to say "No." If you want special interests out of Washington, remove what is bringing them there: the money. If you want to cut spending and reduce the deficit, you have to remove money. If you want to bring politics back to the state and local level, where you actually have a voice, then you need to take back the money. But it begins by saying "No."

The transition will not be easy, but when have Americans ever shied away from a challenge? Living under a paternalistic government is easy, but it quickly builds dependence. And once you are dependent, you are no longer free. We claim we want freedom, but we need the government constantly. We need the benefits it gives us. We have stopped providing for ourselves. Instead we look up to the government, with our hands out. We have given our freedom away, in exchange for convenience.

America was not meant to have a government that cares for you, that picks you up when you skin your knee, that makes you sandwich when you get hungry. Americans are supposed to be brave. We are supposed to take what life gives us, good or bad, and thrive.

America was meant to be the land of opportunity, the land of freedom, the land where you did what you want, and took responsibility for yourself. That is what the founders had in mind when they penned the Constitution 224 years ago. The government was there to protect your freedom to follow your dreams, and little more.

America was not supposed to be easy. It was supposed to be free. We have strayed so far from that ideal that I do not know if we can ever find our way back. But I will try, because I know what must be done. I know what must be done to revive the American spirit, to get back to the ideals upon which this country was founded, to get back the ideals that made this country great.

It starts by saying "No."

SAM: Those are great thoughts Occam. The problem I see with this type of reasoning however, is that it all depends on Americans being organized in a way that they are prepared to take care of themselves. This requires a spirit of community founded on strong families that help each other because they want to. If we simple yank the government out of the welfare business, there are still people that are suffering (emotionally, financially, etc.) that need to be taken care of. I think in our more primitive days as a country we were better organized and willing to address these needs. As we've chosen a path of greater individualism and self-fulfillment we ironically find ourselves more reliant on self-serving bureaucracies to take care of our welfare needs.

OCCAM: The spirit of community did not spring up simply because people liked talking to their neighbor. The spirit of community is a survival mechanism created by humans to face the daily challenges of living.

Government is supposed to be an institutionalization of the community spirit, but it has become so abstracted from reality, especially on the federal level, that the spirit in which it was created no longer exists, but rather it has taken on a life and mind of its own.

As follows naturally from what I just said, by yanking the government we stand a strong chance of remaking new communities to help each other. With the advent of the internet, communicating and organizing has never been easier or faster. We simply have no motivation to do so, because the government ostensibly is there to serve that purpose. However, as we can all plainly see, the government is doing a rather terrible job of it, and putting us all into debt to boot.

I submit we can do better, if given the opportunity.

SAM:I agree with you for the most part. I guess where we differ may be in how we got here. I don't think it is the result of a government coup. I think we gradually let down our defenses over the years. We have decided to sacrifice devotion to family and community in pursuit of selfish desires. Politicians have seized the opportunity to acquire greater power by promising to clean up the mess we leave behind. They never fully succeed of course. But the government increases in power as a result and over time develops a 'mind of its own' as you say to pursue ends we never intended. But that is what ALWAYS happens when we give the government more power...we think we are granting it power to pursue particular end but it inevitably uses that power to pursue ends we never intended.

Maybe we do stand a chance to "remake new communities to help each other" as you say. I certainly hope so. I fear that the transition is something that most Americans don't have the stomach for.

OCCAM: You are absolutely right. We got here because we got lazy, and believed politicians who promised us more than they could deliver. In the end, we got more than what we bargained for, and the very power we gave these politicians to help us ended up being used against us.

Taking Conservatism Back to It's Roots

Here is an article by Pat Buchanan I found on The American Conservative .  The article is entitled "Liquidating the Empire" and it is a critique of American foreign policy.  I was tipped off to this article when I listened to Dan Carlin's Common Sense podcast this morning.  Why have conservatives become the pro-war party?  What happened to the Robert Taft version of conservatism that advocated a non-interventionist foreign policy?  Or even in the LDS tradition, what happened to the voices of men like J. Reuben Clark who declared in the aftermath of WWII (article link here):

In our course under the new gospel of interference with everything we do not like, we have gone forward and are going forward, as if we possessed all the good of human government, of human economic concept, of human comfort, and of human welfare, all of which we are to impose on the balance of the world,— a concept born of the grossest national egotism. In human affairs no nation can say that all it practices and believes is right, and that all others have that differs from what it has is wrong. Men inflict an unholy tragedy when they proceed on that basis. No man, no society, no people, no nation is wholly right in human affairs; and none is wholly wrong. A fundamental principle of the operation of human society is to live and let live.  Yet, to repeat, we have entered into new fields to impose our will and concepts on others. This means we must use force, and force means war, not peace.  What has our apostasy from peace cost us?

Pat Buchanan declares that our "apostasy from peace" has cost us our national soul in some sense.  America, once universally admired, is now equally scorned.  And beyond the loss of respect, the loss of blood and treasure is reaching the point where 'liquidation' of the empire is becoming inevitable.  Give it a read and tell me what you think:

A decade ago, Oldsmobile went. Last year, Pontiac. Saturn, Saab, and Hummer were discontinued. A thousand GM dealerships shut down.  To those who grew up in a “GM family,” where buying a Chrysler was like converting to Islam, what happened to GM was deeply saddening.
Yet the amputations had to be done — or GM would die.
And the same may be about to happen to the American Imperium.
Its birth can be traced to World War II, when America put 16 million men in uniform and sent millions across the seas to crush Nazi Germany and Japan. After V-E and V-J Day, the boys came home.
But with the Stalinization of half of Europe, the fall of China, and war in Korea came NATO and alliances with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Thailand, Pakistan and Australia that lasted through the Cold War.
In 1989, however, the Cold War ended dramatically with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the retirement of the Red Army from Europe, the break-up of the Soviet Union and Beijing’s abandonment of world communist revolution.
Overnight, our world changed. But America did not change.
As Russia shed her alliances and China set out to capture America’s markets, Uncle Sam soldiered on.
We clung to the old alliances and began to add new allies. NATO war guarantees were distributed like credit cards to member states of the old Warsaw Pact and former republics of the Soviet Union.
We invaded Panama and Haiti, smashed Iraq, liberated Kuwait, intervened in Somalia and Bosnia, bombed Serbia, and invaded Iraq again — and Afghanistan. Now we prepare for a new war — on Iran.
Author Lawrence Vance has inventoried America’s warfare state.
We spend more on defense than the next 10 nations combined.
Our Navy exceeds in firepower the next 13 navies combined. We have 100,000 troops in Iraq, 100,000 in Afghanistan or headed there, 28,000 in Korea, over 35,000 in Japan and 50,000 in Germany. By the Department of Defense’s “Base Structure Report,” there are 716 U.S. bases in 38 countries.
Chalmers Johnson, who has written books on this subject, claims DOD is minimizing the empire. He discovered some 1,000 U.S. facilities, many of them secret and sensitive. And according to DOD’s “Active Duty Military Personnel Strengths by Regional Area and by Country,” U.S. troops are now stationed in 148 countries and 11 territories.
Estimated combined budgets for the Pentagon, two wars, foreign aid to allies, 16 intelligence agencies, scores of thousands of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our new castle-embassies: $1 trillion a year.
While this worldwide archipelago of bases may have been necessary when we confronted a Sino-Soviet bloc spanning Eurasia from the Elbe to East China Sea, armed with thousands of nuclear weapons and driven by imperial ambition and ideological hatred of us, that is history now.
It is preposterous to argue that all these bases are essential to our security. Indeed, our military presence, our endless wars and our support of despotic regimes have made America, once the most admired of nations, almost everywhere resented and even hated.
Liquidation of this empire should have begun with the end of the Cold War. Now it is being forced upon us by the deficit-debt crisis. Like GM, we can’t kick this can up the road any more, because we have come to the end of the road.
Republicans will fight new taxes. Democrats will fight to save social programs. Which leaves the American empire as the logical lead cow for the butcher’s knife.

Indeed, how do conservatives justify borrowing hundreds of billions yearly from Europe, Japan and the Gulf states — to defend Europe, Japan and the Arab Gulf states? Is it not absurd to borrow hundreds of billion annually from China — to defend Asia from China? Is it not a symptom of senility to borrow from all over the world in order to defend that world?  (italics added)

In their Mount Vernon declaration of principles, conservatives called the Constitution their guiding star. But did not the author of that constitution, James Madison, warn us that wars are the death of republics?
Under Bush II, conservatives, spurning the wisdom of their fathers, let themselves be seduced, neo-conned into enlisting in a Wilsonian crusade that had as its declared utopian goal “ending tyranny in our world.”
How could conservatives whose defining virtue is prudence and who pride themselves on following the lamp of experience have been taken into camp by the hustlers and hucksters of empire?
Yet, now that Barack Obama has embraced neo-socialism, Republicans are about to be given a second chance. And just as Rahm Emanuel said liberal Democrats should not let a financial crisis go to waste, but exploit it to ram through their agenda, the right should use the opportunity of the fiscal crisis to take an axe to the warfare state.
Ron Paul’s victory at CPAC may be a sign the prodigal sons of the right are casting off the heresy of neoconservatism and coming home to first principles.  -  Pat Buchanan