Those Wayward Elephants

James Antle III provides a spot-on analysis of the Republican party's future in light of its recent past.

Concerning the party's failure and lost opportunities while enjoying majorities in Congress, he writes: "They lost sight of our country's founding principles, which are Republican principles, and traded the liberty of their constituents for their own job security (Emphasis added)."

Concerning what needs to be done from the grassroots level, he writes: "The most important thing is to improve the quality of Republicans in Washington."

Hear! Hear! Click here for the full article.

James Madison observed in Federalist 57:

“The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust. The elective mode of obtaining rulers is the characteristic policy of republican government. The means relied on in this form of government for preventing their degeneracy are numerous and various."

The most effective, and difficult, means We the People have in preventing further "degeneracy" in government is a firm and sustained insistence on the principles of freedom, first at the party level and then, as Mr. Antle notes, after election time.

Arizona and The Constitution

What is lost in most of the discussion of the Arizona immigration law is the Constitution itself. The controversy offers an opportunity to return to the first principles of constitutionally-limited government. Is the law constitutional and, if not, why?

The larger question--and lesson--is why we defer to the constitution when settling these controversies. It is because there is a limit to the power of governments, both state and federal.

Jon Nichols writes an interesting piece on the issue, in which he reminds us of the clear text of the Constitution concerning naturalization. This power is delegated to the federal government. As such, Arizona's law is unconstitutional. Click here full article.

This line jumped out me: "Frustration with the federal government does not justify states grabbing powers that the Constitution rests with Congress."

True and fair enough. Now let's apply that principle to acts of the federal government. Perceived frustrations with the state of private health care does not justify the federal government assuming powers the Constitution does not afford it. Nor do frustrations with the economy, the free market in general, the housing market in particular, the personal retirement of individuals, gun rights of citizens, etc., etc., etc.

There powers granted to the federal government in the Constitution, such as authority over naturalization. There are also a lot of etc., etc., etc., not included in the Constitution. Assuming that a power not listed is a power government may assume is the same as arguing there are no restrictions on the power of government at all. Why else would powers be written down and enumerated? To limit the power of government. That why it is a written constitution!

Nichols makes a remark about conservatives clutching their "unread copies of the U.S. Constitution." He is correct, this does happen when people scrounge around the document to support policies they like and dismiss policies they dislike. But if he is implying leftists actually read their copies of the Constitution, it should be stressed it is to get around the limitations placed on the power of the government over our lives and liberties.

I wish everyone perused the document uniformly, out of principle, and acknowledged the limitations placed on state and federal government.

Otherwise, government will assume power over the etc., etc., etc. that is our lives and liberties.

Borrowing From The Future

Senate Majority Leader Reid illustrates the deeply embedded economic fallacies that underpin so much government policy. Unfortunately, he does so by propping up fallacies, rather than dismantling bad policy:



Like the cash for clunkers program, the home buyer credit program is classic example of government injecting artificial influence in the market. By using taxpayer funds to encourage first time home buyers to buy now, the government created an artificially high demand for homes. All this did was borrow from the future of home sales. What about the housing market "later on"?

Such influence is "artificial" because it introduces pressures in the market that the market itself would neither create nor tolerate. Supply and demand, the cornerstone of basic market operations, gets skewed, prices misaligned, and markets made unnecessarily volatile. Whenever prices do not reflect the natural pressures of the market, government-induced consumption leads to shortages.

In the end the taxpayer pays twice, once in the form of the taxes that fund these schemes and twice as the consumer faced with artificially high prices to pay for products.

Politicians are fond of borrowing from the future for short sighted gains today. If they can hold up numbers and statistics for electoral success now, why worry about the aftereffects of their policies? On a larger scale, for decades they've been borrowing from the future with domestic entitlement programs, taxation, deficit spending, and inflationary policy.

The supply of meddling interventionist freedom-killing policy needs to go way down. That will happen when our demand for its enabling politicians goes way down, too.

Intelligence or Experience?

Would you rather have your economy and, consequently, most of your life planned by the decision-making of a small group of highly educated elites? Or would you rather have the accumulated wisdom of millions of people across hundreds of years, that is, the experience only found in the market, guide our economic and social well being?

In which circumstance is freedom most safely secured?

Thomas Sowell, in his typically brilliant manner, lays out the situation clearly, succinctly, and in historical context in his latest article, "How Smart Are We?"

In his book, A Conflict of Visions, Dr. Sowell describes what he calls the "unrestrained" vision that motivates the elitist planners bent on organizing society in the image of their liking. Sowell also highlights the vision of the "restrained" statesman who have fought to place limits on the power of governments, arguing people best know how to order their own lives, individually as citizens and collectively as societies.

Arguing we are not smart enough to run our own lives is tantamount to saying we are not worthy of the freedom to do so.

Related to this topic, in this video Sowell comments on his latest book, Intellectuals and Society, in the context of one of President Obama's speeches. (I have not read this book, but it is on my shelf. It will go in Book Reports after I do.)

GOP Strategist Still Don't Get It

With 99 days to go to the midterm elections, GOP strategists are urging Republicans in Congress to say, well, nothing:

"While House Minority Leader John Boehner is expected to release a blueprint of what Republicans will do if they regain control of the House, GOP strategists are advising their clients to avoid taking stands on issues that could give Democrats ammunition." See full article here.

Avoid taking stands? It seems politicians, ever-mindful of losing reelection or not getting elected at all, will become more aware of the growing number of Americans who are looking for viable alternatives to the progressive welfare state model of government. Hence, people are looking for politicians who stand for something, not just against the current party in power.

Dear politicians: Start listening to We the People and start ignoring your esteemed advisers. After all, we have a lot more votes than they do.

Colorful Colorado's Senate Primary

The Republican Senate primary is signaling the growing impact of the grassroots freedom movement. Jane Norton has the backing of the party, big name endorsements, and has run her campaign by the book.

Still, she does not have the primary sowed up. As NPR's Jeff Brady notes, this "is not any other year." Her opponent, Ken Buck, has been drawing the support of the Tea Party and small government groups such as Freedom Works.

Buck's mark on the race comes from his appeal to the common sense principles of freedom, namely, a respect for constitutionally-limited government. And he openly rejects establishment party politics as usual: "The very people we send to drain the swamp are wallowing in it."

He is seeking the support of citizens, not the party, and his strategy has worked. This means his approach resonates with enough everyday people in Colorado to make the race newsworthy. This is a good thing. Indeed, this "is not any other year."

So long as Buck avoids further footwear gaffes, his campaign will keep the freedom movement afoot. (I couldn't resist.)

Here is a sample of Buck speaking off the cuff:

"Only So Much The System Can Take"

In light of the upcoming elections, Democrats will ease up on their aggressive agenda. So thinks both Democratic and Republican strategists.

"I'm not even sure it's smart politically given that the White House has had three major sweeping legislative reforms. I think there's only so much the system can take at one time."

What system? If she is talking about a free market economy operating within a constitutionally-restrained government, I think that system has had all it can take for while.

More likely, Ms. Epstein is referring to the election cycle. Political capital is gained and spent between elections. There is only so much that can be done by a party in power, even when controlling the White House and enjoying large majorities in Congress. In a society that predominately holds to the principles of freedom, politicians are forced to keep an anxious eye on that next election.

Thank goodness for that whole scheme of representation and staggered elections, explained in Federalist #10.

Finance Reform Bill Leaves Fannie, Freddie Unreformed

Lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac go unreformed after President Obama signs into law a massive 2,500+ page financial reform bill .





Socialist senator Bernie Sanders (I-V) seems to leave out hope that Fannie and Freddie will be dealt with in the future. Their roles in artificially affecting the housing market and bringing about the bubble and bust, we hope, will be dealt with more candidly then:


Since this bill is intended to regulate Wall Street, that is, private enterprises in a supposedly free market, it actually makes sense the bill does not address Fannie and Freddie: They are government entities, taken over by the federal government.

Freedom in Education. DC To Lead the Way?

When all else fails, try freedom.

"All else" in this case is decades of stifling teachers' union mandates, bureaucratic inertia, and unchecked political correctness. D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee is attempting to reform the long-failing D.C. school system by introducing elements of freedom through reconstitution and the charter school model.

As Milton Friedman long ago argued, introducing competition in education would bring a higher return on dollars spent per pupil. (Capitalism and Freedom, Chapter VI: The Role of Government in Education.) Being that the average per student cost of education in D.C. is $24,600 - "which is "roughly $10,000 more than the average for area private schools," and the district is riddled with failing schools and a high drop out rate, it appears a shot at that whole "freedom" thing might be there last option at improving education.

Best wishes to Ms. Rhee. I hope she understands that the more she tickles the ire of the champions of status quo in the teacher's unions, the closer she is getting to real reform.

Freedom and Cuba, an Insider's View

Yoani Sánchez is a Cuban blogger and freedom-loving dissident. I just learned of her and her efforts. Cato posted an excellent piece by Sanchez, complete with a download of her article, Freedom and Exchange in Communist Cuba.

One line of the sampler that jumped out at me: "Now that the state is out of money and there are no more rights to exchange for benefits, the demand for freedom is on the rise." (Emphasis mine.)

Put in economic terms, an increase of domestic entitlements and government provisions requires an exchange, a trade-off of scare "goods." To actualize the nanny state you must give up your freedom. To empower the state to provide your nanny state you exchange your rights and freedoms, the scarcest of goods. Eventually, you run out of rights and freedoms to exhange.