AM
(an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind): Gentlemen, today is the 240th anniversary
of the Boston Tea Party (December 16, 1773).
These brave Americans sparked the movement that led to our independence
as a nation. And we know what they stood
for because the ideals were boldly advanced in our Declaration of
Independence. Yet, Americans today, who
claim to be affiliated with the Tea Party movement, are treated as far right
wing extremists. Unlike our ancestors,
these Americans are not seeking a revolution; they simply want to restore the
ideals that made America the envy of the world.
Old
Gadfly: Since we seem to have a fairly realistic
understanding of our history and the political philosophy embraced by the Framers
of our Constitution, today’s Tea Party appears to be experiencing the same kind
of surrealism as Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s
Adventures in Wonderland.
IM
(an American citizen with an inquiring mind):
You suggest an interesting analogy, Gadfly. What rabbit hole did they find?
AM: The upside down world of politics.
Old
Gadfly: Explain.
AM: Bluntly, while labeled far right and
extremist, the Tea Party may be the only true voice of reason and authentic liberalism
these days. As I find myself spending
more and more time in Gadfly’s library, I’m starting to see things differently. Yesterday, I read F. A. Hayek’s postscript, “Why
I Am Not a Conservative,” in his book, The
Constitution of Liberty. Hayek
considered himself to be a liberal, but not in the way the term has been
coopted by today’s “modern liberals” or progressives. To Hayek, an authentic liberal was an
advocate for individual liberty, a champion for removing obstacles to free
growth (and conversely opposing new obstacles to free growth), and a defender
of the long-standing institutions that enabled both liberty and growth.[1] Modern liberals, on the other hand, and
progressives are socialistic, not liberal, and they actually manifest the
concept called conservatism. Hayek compared
liberalism and conservatism in the following way:
Unlike liberalism, with its fundamental belief in the
long-range power of ideas, conservatism is bound by the stock of ideas inherited
at a given time. And since it does not
really believe in the power of argument, its last resort is generally a claim
to superior wisdom, based on some self-arrogated superior quality.[2]
Old Gadfly:
It is not easy to follow Hayek because he is trying to instantiate a
moving target regarding liberal and conservative dispositions of political
philosophy in America’s political wonderland.
Many Republicans find themselves aligning more and more with socialistic
policies of Democrats to curry favor for a label of “moderate” and fear being
called “right wing.” Some Republicans
have opposed new obstacles to free growth (i.e., Obamacare, unbridled
government debt, unbridled regulations, and any scheme for wealth redistribution). As we have seen, they are called extremists,
even by fellow Republicans who would rather go along to get along. I still find it unfathomable that some
Republicans still blame other Republicans for the recent government
shutdown. In essence, these acquiescing
Republicans demonstrated exactly what Hayek was observing and writing about in The Constitution of Liberty. Instead of standing for a set of principles,
Republicans react to prevailing political momentum. And, while it is the “modern liberal,”
progressive Democrat faction that commands the direction of the prevailing
political philosophy in America, which is increasingly socialistic, Republicans
have failed to articulate an alternate philosophy to change public sentiment. Thus, our nation drifts further and more
rapidly toward a socialistic welfare state.
IM: Wait a minute, Gadfly. Democrats are generally recognized as
liberals, and the party of ideas and social justice. Republicans are generally considered
conservative, the party of opposition, the party with no ideas.
Old
Gadfly: Yes, but that view is more myth
than reality. Our target audience for
this analysis is the American people, not politicians. It is the American people that advance ideas for
innovation and progress. The only ideas
politicians have, whether Democrat or Republican, are how best to promise a
good society to get elected. The
Democrat’s idea of social justice is justification for redistributing
wealth. These myths are why I say politics
in modern America is like Alice’s
Adventures in Wonderland. Unfortunately,
the Democrat Party was inflicted with its progressive view in the 1930s. Ironically, today’s Democrat Party actually demonstrates
Hayek’s notion of conservatism because Democrat politicians are bound by the
stock of ideas they inherited from Woodrow Wilson and institutionalized to a
certain extent by Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. The craziness of progressive politicians reminds
me of the scene with Dodo, where he proposes a caucus race where everyone runs
in some pattern of his or her own choosing, ending up where each began and each
receiving a prize for “winning the race.”
The scene was pure satire on the ambiguity and indecisiveness of a
political system; and, in this case, it figuratively describes the progressive
political system.
IM: How does Hayek explain progressivism?
AM: Progressivism
is a belief that political elite have superior knowledge and can advance progress
through policies that will benefit the masses.
This is why they believe in strong, central government for planning and
execution. The ideology is socialistic
in nature and has led to an explosion in entitlement programs. Thus, governing principles are based on the two
big Rs for political action:
redistribute wealth and regulate affairs in political, social, and
economic domains.
Old
Gadfly: AM, let me interrupt you for a
minute. I recently read testimony
by Dr. Roger Pilon, a Constitutional scholar, before a U.S. Senate Committee on
October 25, 2005. What I found striking
about the testimony is that the majority of the laws and policies enacted in
1937 and 1938 exceeded the authority granted by the Constitution. In the years 1937 and 1938 the Senate
consisted of 76 Democrats to 16 Republicans, while the House consisted of 334
Democrats and only 88 Republicans. Prior
to his reelection in 1936, there was much debate within the Roosevelt
Administration regarding how to deal with the US Supreme Court’s “nine old men”
who were resistant to unconstitutional laws and regulations. Roosevelt publicly threatened to pack the
court with six more associate justices who would be comfortable with
progressive intentions. While this did
not happen, the Court conspicuously changed its strict Constitutional lens and began
rewriting the Constitution through Court rulings, not Amendments. Does this sound familiar? Remember when President Obama publicly
rebuked the Supreme Court for its Citizen’s United-ruling during a State of the
Union Address? Perhaps Chief Justice Roberts
had the Roosevelt experience in mind when he ruled the individual mandate was a
tax in the Affordable Healthcare Act ruling—a ruling considered by many Constitutional
scholars to be contrary to the enumerated powers of the Constitution. Add to this Senator Reid’s historic and
unprecedented rule change in the Senate (i.e., the nuclear option that allows a
simple majority vote when a super majority vote was normally required) to break
the logjam on Presidential nominees to key Administrative positions and federal
courts, and we can see unbridled progressive power in full play. Why is this alarming? Three progressive nominees to a key
Washington D.C. court will shift the current balance (now three liberal and
three conservatives) in such a manner (six to three rulings) as to protect bold
and sweeping rules and regulations being implemented by the Obama
Administration. These rules and
regulations far exceed the enumerated powers delegated by the people in the
U.S. Constitution.
IM: Are there any regulations that we should
worry about?
Old
Gadfly: Yes, the EPA is about to further
impede economic free growth with new rules.
But the one that troubles me the most is the Treasury Department’s
effort to prohibit 501(c)4 organizations from financially contributing to
political campaigns. This is the new
tactic being employed to shut down many of the Tea Party and equivalent
organizations that were successfully censored (and harassed) by the Internal
Revenue Service between 2010 and 2012 (a tactic that was very successful until
Congress became aware of it and started inquiring about it). With a stacked progressive Court, these new rules
will be protected. Conspicuously absent
is no Treasury Department effort to prohibit 501(c)5 organizations from
supporting political campaigns. This is
the tax-exempt code for labor organizations.
The 501(c)4 distinction is available for left- or right-wing
groups. But, even in this current
American political Wonderland, 501(c)5 organizations are all left-wing. And, amazingly, following the government
shutdown, more federal
employees joined unions, even though they are public servants who serve at
the pleasure of the American taxpayer.
Even the Hatter in Alice’s
Adventures in Wonderland would find this riddle to be a riddle wrapped
inside a riddle.
AM: How do we get out of this rabbit hole?
Old Gadfly: Following Hayek’s logic, the closest term to
authentic liberalism in today’s vernacular is “libertarian.” Libertarians believe in liberty, free growth,
and the time-tested traditional institutions, such as a constitution with
enumerated powers to limit the powers of government. Members of existing political parties,
whether Democrat or Republican, should try to better understand what the authentic
liberal, now libertarian-oriented Tea Party movement represents. This understanding is needed if they want our
nation to regain its authentic American liberal ideals and the progress and
prosperity they once generated.
