Conservatism, Libertarianism, Clarity And Cooperation In Crisis
by Larry Perrault on February 18, 2010 at 9:51 AM
I wonder if some people are asking about me: “Who’s side is this guy on?” Well to begin with, I don’t think that is the first kind of question we should be asking. I’m pretty libertarian when it comes to the federal government: degrees less so as jurisdictions approach my home. As I’ve said, I’m extremely pro-life, not only in my sentiment but in my belief about how a society’s neglect of respect for human life inclines to corrupt the character and behavior of its citizenry. But, I am not for the proposition that it should or the attempt of the federal government to prosecute abortion. It wouldn’t work, either in terms of effective application or in terms of social instruction. I also think gay marriage is a socially silly idea. Having children is a colossal element of life and society. And, children need both a mother and a father. I think I hold some important principles and ideas. One of them is that my children would have lost more without their mother than without me. But, I don’t want a word…ANY word…from a federal government about marriage.
I commented on the Debra Medina discussion that I would prefer to have Medina as governor if the US Congress passed command and control of the health care system in The United States. And, I did so while acknowledging that I don’t favor the stark dealing with the immigration issue that focuses only on law enforcement and border sealing, to the exclusion of restructuring and refining the immigration and assimilation process. Yes, she was flat-footed on Glenn Beck’s surprise question. So what? Many people don’t seem to have come to terms with what is the, and I mean THE, imperative issue of our time. And that issue is that states have surrendered their sovereignty and this federal government is trying to usurp remaining drops of it. A governor who sees the injustice of that will stand up and say “No! Someone will put me in jail, first!” As we have come to know them, “politicians” will be unlikely to say that. If in that respect she is an unpolished politician, give me that manner of coarseness.
The fact is this: the problem has been developing for years. But, with the acceleration of 2009 and the looming crises of the national debt, dollar devaluation and weakness, and close at hand collision of entitlement revenues and liabilities, very stark circumstances will soon be forced on the American public. The only path out of deprivation uncommon to Americans and even a feeble effort to address those problems, will require a dramatic restructuring of our economic environment. Our only other option is to shrink into the pathetic subsistence of mediocrity in both production and consumption that an atmosphere of rarified liberty would bring. Some would, but I’m thinking a lot of Americans won’t sit still for that. Be assured, such a path would only worsen as Americans with better ambitions took their resources elsewhere.
A shorter and superior route than hoping for a national legislative program and hurdling the obstacles of every interest group, would be for states to renounce all federal constraints on commercial and social activity or if necessary, participation in the union altogether. The former would be preferable, but either direction would quickly build and be followed by other states as commerce, work, and wealth burgeoned in states that followed it. Now, as long as people will put up with it, they can pretend that these difficulties won’t come. But, the many unemployed are a measure there, already. And conditions will worsen. I’m not a combination of soothsayer and Chicken Little. The numbers just don’t add up; and I’m not even an accountant. And, how is a society that is already in a financial crisis going to take on even more collectors of unemployment benefits?
Like I said, changes are going to have to come. There is either planning for it or denial. I said I would vote for Perry by default because even he will recognize that dramatic action is demanded. I was never a huge fan of Kay Bailey Hutchison. I think she would be the last to act and the least thoughtful in doing so. And, she is unequipped to express my values in any case.
But in any circumstances and these in particular, conservatives of other stripes and libertarians ought to be in cooperation not conflict. Obviously, there are global concerns as well, and I expect that conservatives mindful of that will have an eye to questions of security and global morality. But if we can prop our economy with loose money and corporate treading of water (I can’t foresee much new business innovation) until the fall elections, I would be glad to see rigorous constitutional libertarians like Ron Paul’s son Rand Paul in Kentucky and Peter Schiff in Connecticut gain seats in the Senate to loudly sound the alarm of our situation. I’ve been victim of it for a few years now as a lifelong philosophical conservative, but especially in light of present and impending challenges, I lament watching conservatives of differing stripes descend to the typical Internet form of name-calling and derision. How the house is decorated is not a priority when you aren’t certain of a pot to pee in.
These are multi-part campaign stops and you will need to go to the successive parts on YouTube. But, here is video of Rand Paul and Peter Schiff. If you can make the time, watch and ask where you disagree. I may disagree on the extent of foreign vigilance, which I agree should be expressed soberly, carefully and modestly as possible while still safe and mnoral. But none of that will be at the front of our minds if we extend our financial irresponsibility. Our adversaries might find that a good time to assault us. But as I said, others will mind that while these guys are minding our liberty and finances at home. Rand Paul is an ophthalmologist, no doubt with plenty of thoughts about health care. And, Peter Schiff is an investment advisor and broker.