About Me

Name: The Proud Liberal
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Our Constitution: Racist, Sexist, and Classist

Mark Levin adores the moral geniuses who agreed that a particular group of Americans should be counted as three-fifths of a human being; w; the moral geniuses who deprived women of the vote; and, who were deathly afraid that the common man would seize control of our government. He would have us venerate the document these moral geniuses put together to advance their own interests in a new country they hoped to put together. He makes his case in "Liberty and Tyranny." It's not worth reading.

He also borrows or invents a group of people he calls "Statists." He believes Statists spring from their mother's womb as fully developed, total Statists. Contrary to Levin, however, Statists are made not born. They are people who have seen that neither the Constitution put together by the moral geniuses, nor the free market, put together by immoral geniuses were effective in eliminating the racist, sexist and classist beginnings of our country. Book, not worth reading.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Intergenerational Swindles?: Mark Levin

The one thing that conservatives never mention when they claim that current spending is stealing from our grand-children is that we achieve something in return for our spending and that what we achieve is passed on to our grand-children, potentially enriching their lives and fortunes. Building a better educational system, a better health care system, a better transportation system, a better energy system, all these will be passed on to our grand-children and they will be the better for the spending we do today. But conservatives never mention this.

Every generation stands on the shoulders of past generations. The good life that we enjoy today in a gift from past generations. We, ourselves, did nothing to earn this gift, which we all receive at birth. "Individual responsibility" is necessary to husband that gift, but did not create that gift.

Our welfare state (what conservatives refer to as America) is the greatest state the world has ever know precisely because it is a welfare state.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Levin gets Free Market Wrong in Liberty and Tyranny

First, I would recommend that everyone read a book entitled "Disaster Capitalism" by Naomi Klein. Best book I've read in some time.

I think it's best to skip Levin's presentation of the Free Market entirely since he heads off in the wrong direction early in his chapter. The first thing to be noted about the free market is that it does not admit "equality" and "fairness"  or "morality" to be conscious and prior choices of the people who participate in a free market. They are accounted for as "unintended consequences" of a free market. It should be noted that if conservatives are in favor of "liberty and freedom" they should have no problem with a segment of our population, even a majority of our population consciously choosing equality, fairness and morality and economic goals. We recognize that these goals are not consistent with the free market and will need to supersede the free market in terms of our choices, i.e., we choose equality and fairness above the free market.

It seems to me that the supporters of the free market view the free market in much the same way they view God and religion and seem to think, though perhaps they don't realize this themselves, that God made the free market as his favorite economic system. Thus, the free market system should never be challenged or changed because it is part of the Divine and created by Divine Providence. Just my observation. But this is supported by the Christian belief that man should not strive to make this world perfect, since that would be equivalent to a desire to be or replace God.

The next thing to consider is some mushiness on the conservative side in regard to man's inherent nature. The supporters of the free market rely on a "selfish human nature" as the driver of the free market to produce unintended consequences that turn out to be good. But conservatives view human nature over a spectrum, which includes "sinful" and "evil." See D'Souza for instance. Now I think there is a palpable difference between selfish and sinful and evil. The big question for conservatives is how do you have faith that human beings who are inherently, at least part, evil, can participate in an economic system and have that evil turn into public good. It boggles the mind.
The libertarian Tabor Machan solves this by denying that man's nature is, after all, not really so bad; but for the conservative there is a problem. Nevertheless cheaters and scammers and downright evil people are quite visible in our free market system, which I think vitiates the claim that the free market produces outcomes that are primarily good for everyone and so should be left alone.

In short, economics 101 free market theory is totally inadequate to depict how the free market operates in the real world full of individuals whose fundamental nature is base and evil.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Levin: "On the Constitution"

From whence comes the legitimacy of one generation binding another? Levin says: "(The Constitution) connects one generation to the next by restraining the present generation from society experimentation and government excess." But it doesn't follow that the present generation must accept what the founders wanted or intended. Conservatives are big on liberty, but they deny the present generation the liberty to accept, reject, modify or pick and choose what we want to follow in the Constitution. If the people are sovereign why isn't the present generation sovereign instead of the Founder's generation being sovereign. If government is based on consent of the governed how can Levin justify not recognizing the consent of the present generation.

Levin simply demonstrates a fundamental conservative error, that of legitimacy. The Constitution should be interpreted in an Originalist way only if the present generation formally legitimizes that it should be.

Levin also engages in some pseudo anthropology, viz: ""One of the fundamental ways man adapts is to acquire and possess property. It is how he makes his home, find or grows food,makes clothing, and generally improves his life. Private property is not an artificial construct. It is endemic to human nature and survival."

Actually, man's activities were originally tribal or communistic. Where did Levin get that drivel?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Levin: "On Faiath and the Founding"

Levin says that reason, by itself, cannot explain why there is reason. But where he errs is in not acknowledging that faith, by itself, cannot explain why there is faith. Levin cites Edmund Burke at length, and describes "the law of nature and of nations," called Natural Law, established by the creator and uncovered through observation and experience over the ages. Levin errs in not acknowledging that not only do individuals in Western Christian Civilization arrive at different observations, but people in other cultures and other histories, with other experience over the ages, arrive at different observations. There is no agreement about Natural Law among men. Levin chooses to ignore this fact.

Levin continues, and chooses to assert that without Divine Providence man would create his own morals, which would be arbitrary. But this is a totally unfounded and unnecessary assumption. If we develop morality through our ages of experience there really is no necessity for Divine Providence. It is redundant.

Levin closes with some words about substituting earthly power for Divine Will. It is still curious to me that George Bush believes that God made him president so that he could deal with the 9/11 terrorists. But in so doing God manifested his will that the terrorists first commit their acts. Curious.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Levin: "On Prudence and Progress"

Levin cites Edmund Burke on the necessity for a slow change which will reform but not fundamentally change an institution. Levin doesn't really get into Burke's idea that institutions are the culmination of thousands of years of human experience and, hence, are "good." Burke fails to recognize or account for the evil that may also accrue over thousands of years. However Levin does include a quote from Burke referencing "evil men." This exposes the inadequacies of Burke's observations. Levin also does not reference Burke's belief that God, "Divine Providence" in Burke's language, created the classes and gave each individual in a class the necessary characteristics he would need for that class: intelligence and character for the aristocrats; broad backs for the peasants. Burke was no fan of democracy. Which brings us to the following:

WORSHIP OF INEQUALITY: Levin embraces a key philosophy of conservatism, that men are inherently unequal, and quotes Eric Hoffer about men's thirst for equality, our thirst to eliminate distinctions among us. Conservatives still worship inequality as "God's will." This is a blatant error which runs through every aspect of conservative philosophy.

Proud Liberal

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

DEBATE LEVIN'S "LIBERTY AND TYRANNY" WITH ME

Just got my library copy of Levin's book. I'm looking forward to deconstructing his theories and observations and would like to find some conservative Town Hallers who will debate me chapter by chapter.

Proud Liberal

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Massive conservative confessions

During the next two to six years of Obama's presidency the conservatives in congress who are having or will have affairs, i.e., commiting adultry, will dribble out one by one and threaten to enhance the democratic gain in congressmen and senators, and move the United States even further toward Socialism (boo). I suggest that the 40-50 GOP members of congress now in an adultrous relationship or who will be in an adultrous relationship, all come forward and confess at the same time. The public will no doubt forget all about this mass confession by the time the next elections roll around. Such a mass GOP confession is the only thing that can save the United States from going Socialist.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Conservatives are bad for health care

once again conservatives have fastened their one size fits all utopian individualism on their latest cause celebre: health care. Once again conservatives cannot not admit that they are not individual atoms floating in the ether, irretrevably lost inside their own skulls, untouched by any other soul in the created universe.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Are Conservatives slaves to "consensus?"

On "This Week" yesterday, George Will commented on the subject of the Supreme Court suit brought on the issue of gay marriage. Will advocates that we wait until a consensus is formed, rather than sue the Supreme Court. Will says a consensus is forming and either stated or implied that consensus was forming on a state by state basis and that we should "let democracy work" by letting the consensus form over time, though he didn't say how much time he has in mind. I think he feels that consensus if forming in favor of gay marriage, but he didn't seem to consider the possibility that a consensus might form in opposition to gay marriage, and then what, i.e., one of the reasons he opposes the Supreme Court suit is that the consensus if forming in favor of gay marriage, he says.

This reminds me of what conservatives said prior to legislation to make Negros equality. Back in the day, conservatives said that society is "organic" and grows organically. They said that a consensus is forming around equality for Negros and that we, American society, ought to wait for that organically formed consensus to jell. In time Negros will learn to "take personal responsibility" and whites will come to accept Negros who have learned to take personal responsibility and, thus, no legislation will be necessary. We will evolve, through markets, to achieve racial equality. One got the feeling that conservatives were speaking in terms of waiting another 50-100 years for this consensus to form. Of course they never did raise the issue of the consensus being formed in opposition to equality for Negros. (We should take as a given that Negros would be in favor of equality and so the consensus we are speaking of is a white consensus.)

This raises the question of whether there is any room in conservative philosophy "to do the right thing." Suppose the consensus formed that was against Negro equality. Suppose the consensus forms that is against gay marriage, which might well happen since the vast majority of people are heterosexual. Are conservatives slaves to majority rule? Even when or if the majority is wrong or immoral?

I think Will, unintentionally, raises questions about the contradictions of democracy, about how consensus is formed, whether consensus is invariably rational or primarily emotional.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Equality, fairness, justice not in conservative vocabulary

The American people are sovereign, not the Constitution. And we can choose to create a society in which the values of equality, fairness and justice are part of our main values. With the liberty that God gave us, we can choose.
 
The reason that we have a well regulated market economy is that we the people choose to regulate the market to conform to our choice of values of equality, fairness and justice.
 
This is why we are a Welfare State.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Conservative confusion about "no free lunch"

Thirty years ago conservatives were the leaders in proclaiming that an unbalanced federal budget was a crime and a sin, since it saddled our children and grandchildren with a debt they had nothing to do with accumulating. An unbalanced budget, they said, is a tax on our unborn children.
 
During the same era they would loudly proclaim that "there is no free lunch," meaning that if you got something, especially from government, it had to be paid for somewhere along the way and in ways that might not be clear at the time the something was given.
 
And, at the same time, conservatives proclaimed that taxes stiffled the American economy, that you got less of whatever you taxed, that taxes were passed on to the consumer and Americans didn't gain by taxing corporations, they ended up paying the taxes themselves.
 
And, at the same time, they proclaimed that "liberals are in favor of taxing and spending."
 
Over the years two problems have emerged with all this rhetoric. The first is that studies show that tax cuts only help grow our economy on the very margin, that growth is really promoted by long term effects of new technology. The second is that studies show that tax cuts do not readily pay for themselves, that it takes a very long time to make up the lost taxes.
 
Thirdly, conservatives typically duck and evade the contradiction between "taxing and spending" and "no free lunch."
To get something you must pay for it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Are Women's Souls Feminine?

Dennis Prager spends a lot of time talking about the difference between men and women. And given that there is wide variability of traits among all people, both men and women, there is certainly a centralizing tendency for women to be more feminine than men.
 
But are women's souls feminine - and men's souls masculine? Following Thomas Jefferson's observation that "All men are created equal," there has been a couple centuries worth of debate on "In what way are (people) equal?"
 
If women's souls are feminine does this mean that they are unequal? Are women unfit to be president of the United States because their souls are unequal to men's? And what about our perceptions and theories about human souls? Does our theory say that souls vary in their characteristics the way the incarnated human being does?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Conservative Confusion on "Equal Opportunity"

Conservatives are quick to point out that individuals are born with variable talents and that the distribution of variable talents within society lead to variable consequences. The fact is on most things there is a range from lowest to highest, i.e., athletic ability, mathematical ability, honesty, integrity, etc. It's logical that consequences should not be equal.
 
Conservatives, however, usually draw very narrow conclusions about the variability of talents and traits and personality and temperaments within society and the human race. Usually, conservatives constrain this correct observation to the disposition of wealth. They point out, again correctly, that those individuals who have the most of a particular talent will be the most successful in that area and, in many cases, success will be accompanied by money. The good society, conservatives say, will provide everyone with an equal opportunity to compete against one another, enabling those with the most talent to achieve their just deserts.
 
At the same time conservatives fail to recognize and respect human variability in the area of sexual traits. Some people are highly sexed. Some are not. Some people are very masculine or very feminine, some are not. Conservatives fail to grant equal opportunity in the expression of sex. Conservatives retreat to a belief that there must be a standardized, not variable, sexual distribution.
 
This is a confusion and a contradiction in conservative philosophy which conservatives do not recognize about themselves.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Contradictions of "Personal Responsibility"

To evoke the doctrine of personal responsibility is to declare a theory of cause and effect, to wit: "Exercising personal responsibility will cause you to be successful." As I acknowledged to Ex-Wyomingite, exercising personal responsibility can certainly cause some good things to happen to you as an individual. The question is, however, what percentage of what happens to you, i.e., the consequences in your life, are caused by exercising personal responsibility.
 
Because, to begin with, it's clear that we are not the cause of many things about us or that happen to us. For instance: we do not choose the country we are born in, nor the parents to whom we are born, nor do we choose our parents' social and economic status; we do not choose our sex; we do not choose our innate mathematical ability, we do not choose our innate musical ability; we do not choose our innate athletic ability. We don't choose our good looks, nor our height, nor our body type. We don't choose to be extroverted or introverted. We don't choose our race. We don't choose our intelligence and we may not choose our emotional maturity either.
 
Our society puts conditions on our opportunities. We accumulate grade point averages and take tests that are evaluated by colleges. We apply to colleges but the colleges we apply to can turn us down or accept us, depending on their evaluation. We take tests to get into graduate school as well, and are in competition with others to be chosen. Graduate schools turn down students every year and the students can't do what they would choose.
 
Competition and training influence the course of our lives. Tennis players, dancers, chess players, ice skaters, musicians, every ambition can be enhanced by starting as young as possible in training for the future. If you don't start early your competition may be way ahead of you by the time you reach your teen-age years. There will be junior leagues for tennis players and golfers, from which the adult stars of tomorrow will come.
 
The ambitious person will usually want to join in the societal stream of concentrations already in existence. If you want to be an actor you will probably find it necessary to go to New York or Hollywood; you will need to go to a big city to work for major corporations.
 
These are all things that personal responsibility doesn't have much effect on, i.e., the things that causes consequences in our lives are external to whatever personal responsibility we exercise. Personal responsibility may be less than a 10% cause in our lives.
 
The ultimate contradiction for conservatives is that conservatives are very high on competition and for situations in which people compete against each other and only the best are the top winners. A lot of people who have exercised great personal responsibility in their lives will be losers because they are simply not as good as the winners, i.e., an individual can't do whatever they want in this life if only they exercise responsibility, etc.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (9) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1234567Next »