Here’s an excellent piece by Stephen Bourque.

When Republicans pursue the policies of a bloated, paternalistic state, as they have for decades, their failures are blamed on freedom. When Republicans expand the federal regulatory grip with ever-increasing rules and restrictions, the inevitable failures are blamed absurdly on “deregulation” and the “free” market. Republicans have outspent Democrats for almost half a century; they dealt the killing blow to the gold standard, imposed price controls, meddled ceaselessly with the monetary system, and expanded the welfare state. It is primarily Republicans who have ushered religion into government affairs and legislation. Republicans are behind compulsory health insurance, corporate bailouts, TARP, funding of religious groups, and the prescription drug bill. Republicans have prosecuted a weak and sacrificial war, putting our fathers and sons in harm’s way not to crush an enemy but to hand out food. With Republicans like this, who needs Democrats?

His sentiments express precisely why the Republican party is no more an ally of freedom and individualism than the Democrats. In fact, they are in many ways more threatening because they operate under a facade of “freedom” and portray themselves as proponents of Capitalism. When their statist policies fail, the ideals they profess to champion are then held accountable by the left.

For decades, Republicans and Democrats alike have been the active enemies of freedom. Thanks to the Republicans alone, freedom has taken the blame.

Until a political movement based on the fundamentals of Capitalism emerges, America can only deviate amongst varying degrees of economic destruction on a path bound for dictatorship.

I know nothing else about congressman Mike Rogers, but this dialogue was right on the money.

Daniel Hannan is a wonderfully refreshing voice.

In general, Hannan is absolutely right in that we’ve abandoned the essence of America, in particular, we’ve discarded the notion and sanctity of individual rights. Rights, if revered, facilitate freedom. Freedom enables productivity. Productivity generates wealth. Wealth creates prosperity. Prosperity benefits life. To the extent that the root of this logical sequence is hampered, so each subsequent link suffers the same diminution.

Americans, in general, have never fully understood the source of this country’s greatness. None of the commonly mistaken notions; religion, race, or resources, can explain the unprecedented achievement by America. Only one concept, rights, i.e., freedom from compulsion, did and can ever facilitate the American ideal. Until our culture learns the meaning of that concept, its logical roots and obvious repercussions, the thrust of America is completely neutered - we’re running on the fumes of reason and justice, and time is running out.

Here’s another example, just as in all cases, showing the left is ideologically bankrupt.

As a result of the American economy and culture circling the drain, many citizens are fed up with the collectivist path our country has taken. Oppressive taxation, crippling regulation and the ever-growing statist cloud overcoming the US are taking their toll on individuals trying to live and prosper in the remnants of freedom. Resurrecting a pivotal link to American Revolution, citizens organized tax protests which appropriately took place on April 15th. Concerned individuals are taking an absolutely justified stand of self-preservation against an unprincipled and tyrannical government that shows no signs of letting up.

The result from our leftist media is not sincere consideration, professional discourse or any other objective commentary. Instead, acting precisely like the mouth-breathing idiots they portray all non-leftists to be, the greatest nation in the history of man is being annihilated and these anti-intellectual cheerleaders for death respond in the only way they can - by cracking ignorant wisecracks.

There is a very poignant conclusion to be drawn from this disgusting spectacle. As irrational pragmatists, leftists (altruist-collectivists) have no intellectual opposition to offer. None of their whims stand to reason, thus the ability to respond with any substantial thought is neutered. Emotional ad hominem is their only option. Adding sexual innuendo at least makes them look cool amongst their peers in addition to the primary purpose of diffusing any factually prudent discussion - nothing more than an evasive facade for changing the subject.

Dick Morris is a likable and mildly entertaining political analyst, especially compared to the typically vicious riffraff blabbing on the major news networks, but his failure to grasp essentials is blatantly (and sickeningly) clear in this article.

Despite his typically ornamental discourse, he usually offers very keen insights into the bowels of Washington. As an insider on both sides of the isle, this professional politician knows the players and the game so well that he often comes off as almost a snitch revealing some secret esoteric tips. In this piece Morris grimly states his forecast for the next stage of America’s demise. While some of his conclusions will probably be remarkably accurate, his outlining premises are not.

2009-2010 will rank with 1913-14, 1933-36, 1964-65 and 1981-82 as years that will permanently change our government, politics and lives. Just as the stars were aligned for Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Reagan, they are aligned for Obama. Simply put, we enter his administration as free-enterprise, market-dominated, laissez-faire America. We will shortly become like Germany, France, the United Kingdom, or Sweden — a socialist democracy in which the government dominates the economy, determines private-sector priorities and offers a vastly expanded range of services to many more people at much higher taxes.

Whoa… sorry Dick, but there’s absolutely nothing laissez faire about America. Even in our infancy there was no strict separation of economy and state. Does he know what the phrase means? Laissez faire is French for “leave alone” - meaning, keep your meddling government hands (not partially, but fully) out of the economy. An economy departs from that unknown ideal with the very first non-objective regulation. And, I hate to steal the thunder of his ominous prediction, but we’ve already eroded into a socialist democracy, and of the very nature that he predicts - surely he knows this.

Obama will accomplish his agenda of “reform” under the rubric of “recovery.” Using the electoral mandate bestowed on a Democratic Congress by restless voters and the economic power given his administration by terrified Americans, he will change our country fundamentally in the name of lifting the depression. His stimulus packages won’t do much to shorten the downturn — although they will make it less painful — but they will do a great deal to change our nation.

That power was given, but not out of desperation alone. Americans lack the fundamental regard for individual rights. Combine that with the de facto mindset of altruism guided by pragmatism, and enough of “the people” will condone any cannibalistic whim for the sake of the tribe. The deadly sanction granted by this nation of victims was done so with the calm indifference of concrete-bound compassion - not out of panic.

In implementing his agenda, Barack Obama will emulate the example of Franklin D. Roosevelt. (Not the liberal mythology of the New Deal, but the actuality of what it accomplished.) When FDR took office, he was enormously successful in averting a total collapse of the banking system and the economy. But his New Deal measures only succeeded in lowering the unemployment rate from 23 percent in 1933, when he took office, to 13 percent in the summer of 1937. It never went lower. And his policies of over-regulation generated such business uncertainty that they triggered a second-term recession. Unemployment in 1938 rose to 17 percent and, in 1940, on the verge of the war-driven recovery, stood at 15 percent. (These data and the real story of Hoover’s and Roosevelt’s missteps, uncolored by ideology, are available in The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes, copyright 2007.)

But he will emulate the same collectivist, Keynesian example of FDR - not only fostering the same outcome, but guided by the same explicit tactics. They are, in principle, cut from the same mold.

Regarding the Shlaes reference as being factual and uncolored, how could FDR’s missteps be classified as such without being colored by an ideology? The term misstep would indicate a flaw or error based on some standard. That standard, and the corresponding ideology which deems them erroneous is reality - precisely what the varying degrees of statism considered by Morris as ideologies are conspicuously lacking as a standard. Morris displays a shocking level of concrete-bound thinking in this passage. Capitalism isn’t even on his radar, primarily because he doesn’t understand it as his first paragraph proves. The only options in his world differ merely in degree of Government meddling.

Obama’s record will be similar, although less wise and more destructive. He will begin by passing every program for which liberals have lusted for decades, from alternative-energy sources to school renovations, infrastructure repairs and technology enhancements. These are all good programs, but they normally would be stretched out for years. But freed of any constraint on the deficit — indeed, empowered by a mandate to raise it as high as possible — Obama will do them all rather quickly.

Good? For whom, and according to what standard? Each program mentioned is beyond the proper role of Government, assumes mass violation of property rights, and will further cripple our economy.

Will he raise taxes? Why should he? With a congressional mandate to run the deficit up as high as need be, there is no reason to raise taxes now and risk aggravating the depression. Instead, Obama will follow the opposite of the Reagan strategy. Reagan cut taxes and increased the deficit so that liberals could not increase spending. Obama will raise spending and increase the deficit so that conservatives cannot cut taxes. And, when the economy is restored, he will raise taxes with impunity, since the only people who will have to pay them would be rich Republicans.

Morris fails to explain how an increase in expenditures, by a non-productive entity inflating our currency, can occur without negative economic results, and by what magic will the economy be restored?

In the name of stabilizing the banking system, Obama will nationalize it. Using Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to write generous checks to needy financial institutions, his administration will demand preferred stock in exchange. Preferred stock gets dividends before common stockholders do. With the massive debt these companies will owe to the government, they will only be able to afford dividends for preferred stockholders — the government, not private investors. So who will buy common stock? And the government will demand that its bills be paid before any profits that might materialize are reinvested in the financial institution, so how will the value of the stocks ever grow? Devoid of private investors, these institutions will fall ever more under government control.

I think his prediction here has merit.

But it is the healthcare system that will experience the most dramatic and traumatic of changes. The current debate between erecting a Medicare-like governmental single payer or channeling coverage through private insurance misses the essential point. Without a lot more doctors, nurses, clinics, equipment and hospital beds, health resources will be strained to the breaking point. The people and equipment that now serve 250 million Americans and largely neglect all but the emergency needs of the other 50 million will now have to serve everyone. And, as government imposes ever more Draconian price controls and income limits on doctors, the supply of practitioners and equipment will decline as the demand escalates. Price increases will be out of the question, so the government will impose healthcare rationing, denying the older and sicker among us the care they need and even barring them from paying for it themselves. (Rationing based on income and price will be seen as immoral.)

Indeed the essential point is never considered, but what Morris deems the essential is only a symptom. There will be a shortage of resources, both professionals and supplies, because socialized medicine violates the rights of all involved parties. Medical professionals are already turning their noses up at a system in which their expertise is wrangled by regulation and the economic distortion of socialization. The coercive monopoly of Government MedCo. will also cripple the market for medical supplies, save the few who’ll jump at the opportunity for a lucrative Government contract.

Finally, he will use the expansive powers of the Federal Communications Commission to impose “local” control and ownership of radio stations and to impose the “fairness doctrine” on talk radio. The effect will be to drive talk radio to the Internet, fundamentally change its economics, and retard its growth for years hence.

Couple this with the impending wedge of Net Neutrality and we’ll have full censorship of all viable media - not to mention a stupid and crippled Internet.

So Obama’s name will be mud by 2012 and probably by 2010 as well. And the Republican Party will make big gains and regain much of its lost power.

I don’t think it will happen so quickly. There’s still a decent sliver of freedom left to pin the blame on. As long as there’s a scapegoat, Obama will remain the darling mascot of the irrational Left. Besides, Conservatives have nothing better to offer - only the same pragmatist notions in a different hue.

But it will be too late to reverse the socialism of much of the economy, the demographic change in the electorate, the rationing of healthcare by the government, the surge of unionization and the crippling of talk radio.

It may be too late to do so without painful depressions, but as long as people are open to the ideas of reason, rights, selfishness (in the true sense of the word) and individualism, there is an opportunity for America to see its brightest days.

I couldn’t agree more with this eloquent farewell:

Not to embrace Obama’s continuation and distillation of your willfully ignorant approach to government and the failed policies that flow directly from it, but here’s wishing the door doesn’t hit your ass on the way out, Mr. President.

So many in this country have deluded themselves into thinking things are really going to change with the new administration. Impending economic doom aside, we’re merely switching from one side of the welfare-statist coin to the other. The new gang will exacerbate our financial turmoil, but despite the fact that Obama is as Keynesian as they come, he’ll merely be the particular collectivist clown in the wrong place at the wrong time.

He’s been dealt (via Life’s Lottery) a flaming bag of irrationality ignited, fueled, and soon-to-be exacerbated by his modus operandi. Yet, all accusatory snarls will point to some imaginary figment which has yet to exist, the “Free Market”, and the regulations will continue to flourish.

Neither party has the philosophical underpinnings required to steer America away from our path to destruction, i.e., towards a strict separation of Government from economics, education and medicine. Neither will abandon altruism as their guide in favor of egoism, refuse collectivism as their mode in reverence to the individual, or deny pragmatism as their means as opposed to a rational objective philosophy based on reason.

I’m sure there are plenty on the other side that are just as impressive. These represent the culture that’s driving America down the shitter.

Well, the day has come when America has elected a president of a different race than all that preceded him. The usual suspects boast of America’s progress and lament how proud Martin Luther King would be - as if their collectivist triumph, which happens to be championed on this particular day by a man of mixed race, carry the same moral nobility as Dr. King’s genuine crusade for a colorblind world.

MLK correctly promoted that men abstain from taking the crude intellectual shortcut of assessing another man based on his genetic lineage, i.e, overlooking an individual in favor of a group. Yet, in this great day of change, a tremendous number of people did exactly that, and on a more fundamental level, they elected a man who’s an avowed collectivist, i.e, one who overlooks individuals in favor of a group as his exclusive method.

Draw your own conclusions about progress.

A man’s philosophy drives his every decision. When such decisions extend into the realm of wielding force against a nation of individuals, the importance of his philosophy is immeasurable. How he regards our rights to life, liberty, and property, how he reveres the proper scope of government, his sense of justice – these are the keys one should consider when evaluating a political candidate, especially one looking to rule a nation.

I didn’t vote. Given the choice of poison or venom - I’ll stay home. Yes, the current dimwit imbecile is on his way out - good for America. No, we won’t be harnessed by a theocratic regime - great for America. At least our march into collectivist stagnation will be orchestrated with the style and class of a charismatic and well-spoken dictator.

Race, like sex, doesn’t determine one’s philosophy, intelligence or ability. However, for a country plagued in its infancy by the irrational collectivist disease of slavery, and since longing to be colorblind - today is one of symbolic significance. For a culture rank with sloppy attire, unintelligible slang and nearly void of aspiration to achieve anything of rational value, a neatly dressed, extremely well-spoken man in a successful and honored position is a unprecedented role-model and cultural icon. This is good for America.

What the man will do is not. Obama is a collectivist by his every statement. He does not regard individuals with any degree of sanctity. People are merely spokes in the wheel of his vision. This is bad for America. Obama will treat men as property of the State, and as such, what should properly be considered as rights will be treated as privileges. When property is a privilege, wealth can be confiscated, guns can be collected, and business regulations can be enforced. When men are seen as means to a collective end, any portion of their life, liberty or property can be used as the ruler desires. As in every collectivized society in the history of man, individuals drained of their rightful motive and means to survive will stagnate in passivity. This is bad for America. Men wrangled with regulation, dictates and plunder, while also being denied the proper means to protect themselves from other men in desperation from the same oppression is a society doomed to resort to animalistic survival. This is bad for America.

If instead of an avowed collectivist, this candidate were a rational-minded individual who valued justice, freedom, and rights, this day could be one celebrated by all Americans. Instead, such a day of pride for many Americans coincidentally spearheads a likely fatal stab in the back of all Americans by way of undermining our essence. I’d like very much to share the celebratory sentiment, but in the context of freedom and individual rights, today is a very dark day.

A great read from GVH…

What is government? What is it for? What does it do? How does it do it? Not one of these questions comes up, and yet we’re carrying on a discussion of how to get a better field of candidates as if we were all on a corporate search committee. Except that the government doesn’t pay too well. And for some reason, the United States hasn’t restructured or spun off a few states to become more manageable. And it has a Constitution, at least for the moment. Why?

These unusual properties of the job of a government official all relate to the nature of the government as it is today, although one needs to know further whether we have a proper government in order to know whether any given aspect of the job would normally be a factor — or whether there are other factors or qualifications we ought to consider, but haven’t.

I am not going to discuss the proper nature of government at length here, today. (Ayn Rand has done that already, and far better than I could, anyway.) I will note that the government is the only social institution that can legally wield physical force — the delegated retaliatory force of self-defense of the citizens — and its only proper purpose is the protection of individual rights.

In contrast to the electorate at the time of America’s founding, an astounding percentage of the population today does not grasp the nature or purpose of government. This means that, as voters, they will demand — and get — candidates committed to misusing government force for other purposes at the expense of the protection of our freedom. The Founders were aware that such a day could come and deliberately made it difficult for the government to actively do things beyond its proper function. They called it “checks and balances”.

In that light, the very idea of calling for a more “competent” government officialdom should cause the spine of anyone who values his freedom to tingle. Competent? To do what? Make the trains run on time? Even if they can make you board those trains to somewhere you don’t want to go? Our problems are not because our government is run by incompetents, but because it is frequently doing the wrong thing, although not, so far, to the degree of running trains to an Auschwitz.

In addition to calls for “better” officials putting the cart before the horse, it is worth noting that, due to government meddling in the economy, there is a vast misconception — shared by Reynolds — that our government officials need to be Renaissance men.

Why? Their proper job description is actually rather simple.

This argument has surface plausibility due to the unnecessary complexity of the mixed economy. (Thus, it is also related to the notion I elaborated on earlier that voters need to be near-omniscient to make good electoral choices) But this argument is wrong, and often reflects an inability by those who hold it to think in terms of principles. As I said before:

Heinlein has it half-right that figuring out how to vote requires an “enormous” amount of time. It does take time, it is true, to master the principles on which our nation was founded. However, once one does this, these principles greatly simplify how one approaches any subsequent election, even in today’s context of massive government intrusion. Anyone who thinks that each election requires enormous amounts of study before one can vote intelligently does not understand the cognitive role of principles.

“Protect my individual rights, and do not violate them,” is the basic principle by which I would want a government official to act. Yes, he would have to have some idea of what individual rights are, but it would not matter one jot whether he were a Creationist, a global warming hysteric, an animist, a Moslem, or (usually) uncomfortable thinking about scientific concepts, so long as what he did in office was guided by that principle. And, under a proper government, his power to adversely affect my life would be greatly diminished compared to what it is today.

We do need cultural change, but what Reynolds calls cultural “change” is just more of the same. What needs to change about our culture is for more people to understand the nature of individual rights and the proper role of the government. Each, incidentally, entails a discovery of proper ethical principles — which, incidentally, actually run counter to the altruism Reynolds prescribes.

Until that happens, we will remain in an inherently unstable mixed economy that will alternately drift and lurch towards totalitarianism. The government will increasingly attempt the impossible: replace the minds of millions of individuals with bureaucrats and inflexible rules in order to run an economy for 300 million plus. This will cause problems, which the government will expand to attempt to “fix” ad infinitum.

The government can not run the economy and should not try. There is no such thing as a government official competent for that job, and that is a job I frankly want to remain undone because I have work of my own to do and want politicians out of my way. And there is nothing wrong with me wanting to live my own life as I see fit. In fact, that is good. [emphasis mine]

Read the whole thing if you can…