At the Water's Edge

In thinking about this posting I realized that I have a third goal to add to my justification for making yet another blog: to persuade the American left to return to a more moderate position, to come back to it's senses. I realize that this might result in more Democratic political victories but it is a price I would consider worth paying just to have both political parties on the same side against the determined and increasingly dangerous enemies we face in the world outside our borders.

Ever since Vietnam liberals have found it nearly impossible to see any US military action as a positive or necessary thing. Thus they view every war or intervention through the prism of their version of the Vietnam conflict. They have tried so hard to make the Iraq struggle Vietnam redux. They did the same with Afghanistan and the first Gulf War. Even non-military actions, such as the sanctions against Iraq before 9/11/01, often came under fire.

I don't believe that Democratic politicians are unaware or unconcerned about the serious threat we face in the combination of the struggle in Iraq, the two-headed menace of Iran and Al Qaeda and the complicity of Syria, Russia, China and North Korea. Not to mention the Balkans, the Sudan, Somalia, Palestine, Hugo "El Mono" Chavez in Venezuela, FARC in Colombia etc. etc. etc. And I'm sure my liberal friends are indeed patriotic for the most part. But to put it bluntly, I think that the Democrats are putting partisan political strategy above national security and above the obligation we have as a prosperous, powerful and (hopefully) moral democracy to help people out there struggling against terror and tyranny. It is getting extremely dangerous to have a nation so divided against itself.

Please read this linked speech by Joe Lieberman, pleading with his own party to cut it out. Here's an excerpt.

. . [T]here is something profoundly wrong--something that should trouble all of us--when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about how the Bush administration might respond to Iran's murder of our troops, than about the fact that Iran is murdering our troops.

There is likewise something profoundly wrong when we see candidates who are willing to pander to this politically paranoid, hyper-partisan sentiment in the Democratic base--even if it sends a message of weakness and division to the Iranian regime.

Are You Questioning My Liberalness?!?!

OK, let's get this over with. I've made it clear enough that I am not a "Liberal" or progressive so I have to call it like I see it. Nevertheless I want to be as fair and accurate as I can be.

Unfortunately, I have a very dim view of the current liberal movement. But I respect the tradition and it's contribution to American politics so I'll write about that before I disparage the sad state of the contemporary American Left.

In my very first posting I referred to the presidential election of 1932 between Republican President Herbert Hoover and Democrat Franklin Roosevelt. This was the election when Democrats became the "liberal" party and establish the foundation of it's modern incarnation. Republicans had controlled the White House all through the prosperous and peaceful 1920s. Herbert Hoover was a brilliant and popular president, winning the nomination and general election in 1928 by a landslide. He was a moderate, considered part of the Progressive movement but more pro-business than his predecessors. His undoing was that he presided over the stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing depression.



FDR probably had the election in the bag from the get go. But as part of his campaign he did something that was seen as shrewd but trivial at the time but that would have long lasting significance: He dropped the Progressive label that had become a Democratic heritage with Woodrow Wilson and began to refer to his philosophy as "Liberal." It was a rather far fetched ploy since he was not at all proposing more free market economics and small, less intrusive government, quite the opposite. But the Progressive label had become a liability: Wilson's League of Nations never worked, the Prohibition was a disaster and, worst of all, the Republican candidate Hoover was seen as a Progressive, even if only by association.

Hoover's reaction to FDR was to insist that clearly the Republicans were the more liberal party - more free market and against the League of Nations. And, obviously, prohibition was inaugurated by President Wilson.

But FDR won and ever since then the Democrats have called themselves "Liberals." So what does the term mean in it's new incarnation?

FDR's essential justification for claiming to be a liberal was that he was offering a new kind of freedom that seemed a lot more attractive to most people in those dark days of the early 1930s: Freedom from want, freedom from hunger and unemployment, freedom from fear. Sounds pretty good, right?



To offer this kind of new freedom FDR and his brain trust created dozens of new government agencies to provide new services for the people. The size of the federal government grew 10 times over. Of course, in order to pay for this new taxes had to be levied but they were presented as a temporary measure to solve a crisis. (There's a lesson in that somewhere, I think).

So the bottom line is that the liberals are interested in using the power of government to solve people's problems. At first that was primarily in the realm of economics but with the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s it was extended into social issues. The liberals wanted to make sure that no one's rights were infringed upon or denied, to make sure that everyone acted in a liberal fashion, and felt that the government could and should do the making sure.

The dilemma for liberals is that using the government to make people change, even if you consider it a change for good, requires force - and that isn't very liberal.

When it came to foreign policy, things are even more confusing. Before 1968 the liberals (i.e. the Democrats) were the interventionists and the conservatives were generally isolationists, although both vigorously opposed Soviet communist expansion. Our involvement in WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam was promoted and undertaken by Democrats/liberals and opposed by most Republicans. Now it is just the reverse.

So what's up with liberals today? The movement described above doesn't sound too unreasonable, it sounds very good in many ways. For the last 30 or so years the liberals have become more and more radical and coercive, more isolationist and less and less liberal. Fitting then that H. R. Clinton wants a new label. And for once I support her agenda.

Can't We All Just Get Along

I know, that's a really tired line. The truth is that people get along a lot better than it seems from what they show on TV and report in political articles.

As I mentioned before, people choose their politicians and party affiliation for all sorts of differing reasons. Try as I might I've never been able to come up with one critical idea the explains how people line up politically. I don't think that one idea or principle exists.

Now that I am mature, seasoned and sophisticated I've come to believe that all the issues in American politics can be grouped into three essential categories: Foreign policy, economic policy and social policy. What makes each of today's political movements different can be understood by how they approach each of those three areas.

With no further ado . . .

The Conservatives
Some say Conservatism is not ideological but a matter of temperament. In my opinion, most American Conservatism is ideological in some way. American Conservatives generally support military force when deemed necessary, believe in market economics over government planned economics, and favor traditional social mores in whatever way they can. But there are disagreements in all of these areas and thus there are subcategories. Here are a few that have earned their own nicknames.
PaleoConservatives Pro-military but non-inverventionist on foreign policy. Willing to use
law to promote and preserve traditional culture but believe most issues should be decided,
on a local or state level, OK with market economics, but puts more value on
social/moral issues and supports some protectionism; emphasizes fiscal conservatism
E.g. Pat Buchanan.
NeoConservatives The label really refers to former liberals who now favor a more
forceful, interventionist type of foreign policy. Generally more liberal in social policy.
The label doesn't truly apply to economic policy. Thus Dick Cheney may be seriously free
market while Joe Leiberman still loves that old-time government economic planning, but
both are thought of as Neoconservatives. E.g. William Kristol
Constitutional Conservatives Generally join the Neoconservatives on foreign policy,
particularly since 9/11. Favors free market economics wherever possible. Believes
that contentious social issues should be dealt with according to Constitutional guidelines,
otherwise flexible on the social tip (in the Classical sense of the word). E.g. Me and my hero
James Taranto.

* It is important to note that these three groups do not represent all conservatives. In fact, I think they probably make up only a small minority. But they are the influential ones, the ones competing for the minds of the many different people of a conservative persuasion.

The Libertarians I don't mean to give these guys the short shrift, it's just that their ideology is so clear and consistent. They are committed to an almost completely free market economic system and personal liberty with as little government intrusion as possible. Generally non-interventionist in foreign policy. E.g. Ron Paul.


Next posting - The Liberals.