Our Political Installment Plan
Barbarous Relic 
Screenwriting Sanctuary
|
Our Political Installment Plan
Barbarous Relic
|
|
By George
Articles
Demagogue's Survival
Guide
|
By George F. Smith Economist Ludwig von Mises observed over a half-century ago that we have essentially two choices in politics, and need only two labels: Laissez-faire or dictatorship. Either our lives and property belong to us or they belong to the state. [1] Many people would disagree. Between these two positions, they say, is a vast stretch of ground which avoids the problems at the extremes. Unrestrained or laissez-faire capitalism is an evil, they contend, but so is complete state rule under socialism or fascism. Government must impose restrictions on our freedom but only to the extent needed.
The middle begets fog Somewhere between the extremes are President Bush's ideological gurus, the neoconservatives. What is neoconservatism? According to dictionary.com it is an "intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960s: 'The neo-conservatism of the 1980s is a replay of the New Conservatism of the 1950s, which was itself a replay of the New Era philosophy of the 1920s' (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.)." Clear, isn't it? What could we infer about a neoconservatives convictions? Would he or she support free trade? Abolition of the income tax? The government's war on terrorism? Perhaps an actual neoconservative can help us out. Irving Kristol, called the godfather of neoconservatives, once defined a neoconservative as a "liberal who has been mugged by reality." [2] Funny, maybe, though not too helpful. But he offers some hints. Neoconservative intellectuals should be pro-religion, even if they themselves are not religious. Such a posture is necessary to encourage religious belief in ordinary people, as a means of keeping them in line. Neocons even attack Darwinian evolution because of its threat to religious foundations. But Kristol's most telling comments are about government. Conservatives shouldn't waste their time opposing the state, he says; liberals are the enemy. The state doesn't care if you oppose it or not. Its perfectly okay for neocons to seize state power because they will do good, whereas liberals will not. This friendliness to the state came about because conservatives weren't reaching the college-educated by lecturing them on the threat of big government. What can we conclude from these remarks? Neoconservatives are Machiavellian, but to what extent? If they succeed in annihilating liberals will they give us back our freedom? "When labels confuse rather than clarify, they should be dropped," writes economist Mark Skousen, who noted that "the political spectrum has become a rhetorical version of Abbott and Costello's 'Who's on first?' routine." [3] But confusion serves a purpose. Few people would ever support dictatorships outright. But tell them the train they're on is headed for "democratic" progress or "new" freedom, and they'll stay on board.
Government's fix for freedom The Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries produced the doctrine of man's rights, which declared that the only justification for government's existence was as protector of man's life and property. Since the freedom each man is born with can only be violated by other men, human beings form societies as a means of common defense. They assign government the task of defending their right to live free. Practiced consistently, this is what laissez-faire means. Lincoln's election challenged this view. With the new Republican Party in power, government became more aggressive, adopting the old crony philosophy of mercantilism. To confuse the public and disarm opponents, supporters called their program the American System. But it was essentially mercantilism, a system wherein government doles out favors, such as tax-funded subsidies and protectionist tariffs, to politically-connected individuals or groups. When King George III tried to impose mercantilism at the expense of the colonies, they revolted. When Lincoln tried similar measures with the South, they formed the Confederacy. By the close of the century many Americans saw the abuses of mercantilism, called it capitalism, and decided the cure was progressivism -- another step in the direction of dictatorship. As state aggrandizement got rolling politicians of both major parties found it advantageous to barter political favors in exchange for votes. This produced problems that were always government's responsibility to fix with more of what caused them. Mercantilism, interventionism, neoconservatism, liberalism -- the various "isms" favoring state interference in our lives -- is giving government more and more muscle, always under the banner of freedom. People today are as likely to cringe at laissez-faire as they are at dictatorship. But unlike the ends, the middle is always on the move. It lacks a principled anchor to hold it in place. As Mises noted, it's giving us dictatorship on the installment plan.
References 1. von Mises, Ludwig, Laissez Faire or Dictatorship, http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?printFriendly=Yes&control=814 2. Bailey, Ronald, The Voice of Neoconservatism, Reason Online, October 17, 2001, http://reason.com/rb/rb101701.shtml 3. Skousen, Mark, No More Political Labels, Please, http://www.mskousen.com/Books/Articles/labels.html Next in State
Treachery
|
Other Interesting Sites
Ron Paul's Classics of Libertarian Thought Greenspan's 1966 "Gold and Economic Freedom"
|
|
|