Monday, December 16, 2013

Tea Party in Wonderland


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.


[1] F. A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty (The Definitive Edition), (Chicago, IL:  The University of Chicago Press, 2011 [1960]),  pp. 520-521.
[2] Ibid, p. 526.

No comments:

Post a Comment