Two Random Thoughts

Blurb one: Reports indicate – and a trip to the Acme confirms – that food prices are soaring and that farmers are now making money hand over fist. Combine high demand for foodstuffs with the increasing demand for agricultural products as the basis for fuel and – voila! – record prices.

So. Would now not be a great time to zero out all federal (and state) farm subsidies?

Blurb two: The political dictionary defines "gaffe" as "inadvertently telling a politically incorrect truth". Comes now Geraldine Ferraro, veteran token, averring that Barack Obama would not be where he is today were he a white male.

Ferraro notes, accurately, that if she had been named "Gerald", she’d be historically anonymous; Mondale never would have chosen a little-known, unaccomplished white male Member of Congress as his running mate.

Just so, today, were Barack Obama the same in every way, excepting that his paternal line hailed from Dublin rather than Kenya, he’d been a complete political non-entity. He never would have been chosen to address the DNC in 2004; he never would have been elected to the Senate. And if, as a white male, first term Senator, he’d dared to run for President, he’d get the same respect John Edwards got: a cute, well-spoken neophyte, who won nowhere (to be fair to Edwards, he’d been in office three times as long as Obama when he sought the Presidency).

For telling the truth, Ferraro finds herself vilified. Obama, for his part, condemned her as a "slice and dice" politician , advancing a "... politics that's about race and about gender and about this and that, and that's what Americans are tired of because they recognize that when we divide ourselves in that way we can't solve problems." (Not exactly sound bite quality work from this famously articulate pol)

THAT’S truly funny. The Democratic Party positively revels in "slice and dice" politics and considers identity absolutely crucial. Only a Republican – and a conservative Republican at that – denies the relevance of characteristics like race, sex, and ethnicity (in matters political). Hillary draws huge support from feminists, who believe gender is (political) destiny, while Obama routinely racks up 95% of the black vote, numbers inexplicable except as based upon race.

It would be nice if Obama truly meant what he said. When he announces his support for the abolition of all "affirmative action" programs and demands that his Party foreswear its express quota system for choosing delegates, then he can be taken seriously.

Advice we could do Without

Consider the irony of The New York Times – or other liberal institutions – purporting to speak in the best interests of the Republican Party. The GOP, the Gray (or, more appropriately, the azure) Lady opines, should reject the present candidates for Senate and, instead, offer the NJ electorate a candidate in the finest tradition of "moderates" like Cliff Case.

"After eight years of failed right-wing Republican policies," the editors huff, "New Jersey Republicans owe their voters a viable moderate choice."

Hmm. Right wing policies? Neither this administration nor this Congress have been notable for pursuing any "right wing" policies. Indeed, one of the great mysteries of life centers on why the left hates George Bush so much, given that, on spending/size of government issues, he’s got his feet firmly in their camp. Not any kind of conservative, Bush spent like a drunken sailor and, abetted by a Republican Congress (which no longer felt obliged to act like conservatives once Bill Clinton left town), created huge new entitlement programs while bloating every sector of government in most "un-right wing" ways. He recently joined with the Democrats to support a budget-busting "stimulus" bill – using borrowed money for handouts – which puts the lie to any "fiscal responsibility" contentions by either party. Bush’s record ought to be at least as palatable to the Left as was that of Bill Clinton; only conservatives have the right to object to Bush’s policies.

Faithful readers – both of them – know that I have a problem with the word "moderate", as it lacks any discernable meaning. The one reliable prediction one can make about a "moderate" is that she will be wrong at least half the time. Besides, The Times describes Frank Lautenberg as a "moderate". Given that he and his cerulean colleague, Robert Menendez, were just named the most liberal tandem in the entire US Senate, it appears that nothing less than a Stalinist warrants a Times description as a leftist.

Thomas Paine, speaking of "moderation", opined:

"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice."

The left considers "moderation in principle" – pro-freedom principle anyway – a virtue; naturally, they encourage Republican candidates untethered by such hoary constraints.

What would be the point of a two party system if the only "choices" presented were leftists and leftists-lite? I attained the mature, responsible age of 18 in 1976 and cast my first US Senatorial primary vote against Cliff Case in 1978 – precisely because he was such an off-the-charts liberal. Jeff Bell, his primary opponent, sent out a mail piece bearing a simple issues chart. On each issue – from building the B-1 to abortion – Case was Times-certified Politically Correct – which is to say wrong – on every single one. Had Case won the primary, Bill Bradley would have been, by far, the better choice for any conservative.

The New Jersey electorate will clearly be a tough nut for conservatives to crack for the foreseeable future; too many folks here read The Times for other than comic relief.

But, perhaps, just maybe, the electorate will finally start putting the pieces together: vote for liberals, get dysfunctional – and astonishingly expensive – government.

The polls, by substantial margins, indicate that the public is fed up with high property taxes, high income taxes, high sales taxes, absurd public employee benefits, outrageous spending, and crushing debt, all of which are the inevitable consequences of voting for Democrats. Or, more accurately, for liberals, as not a few Republicans – of precisely the stripe The Times endorses – cause similar problems.

Tom Kean, for instance, who registers approval from The Times, more than doubled the size of state government in eight short years – a record even McGreevey/Codey/Corzine couldn’t match – and left his successor, the hapless Jim Florio, to pick up the pieces – and take the blame. It’s a measure of just how bad things have become in NJ, under both leftist Democrats and leftist Republicans, that a quasi-Socialist like Jon Corzine sounds almost responsible (recently) by comparison.

No, my friends, the NJGOP should NOT offer the voters a leftist ‘alternative’ to a leftist Democrat; it should offer the people a clear choice. It’s possible -- even likely -- that the electorate here in NJ will reject a true Republican message of individual freedom and individual responsibility – akin to that offered by (of all people) George McGovern in the WSJ the other day (referenced in my previous post), so what? Frank Lautenberg’s policies would be every bit as objectionable and destructive were he a Republican, because the leftist policies, not the Party label, matter.

If the people prefer to live in a socialist dystopia, that’s their call. But there exists absolutely no reason for the Republican Party to assist them in their efforts to consign themselves to economic hell. Better to stand on the sidelines advocating "change" and cheerleading for a better, freer country than to permit a lust for power to corrupt one’s principles. At some point, even the most thickheaded folks will have to conclude that if they want less extensive, less expensive government, they will have to turn to conservatives. And, if they don’t, those who remain behind to pick up the ever increasing tab deserve what they get. (As Mark Twain put it, ‘good and hard’.)

Republican politicians, like physicians, exist not to tell the people that which they want to hear, but to tell then that which they need to hear. After that, it’s the people’s choice. The people may choose to ignore their political well-being just as they possess the right to neglect their physical health. They can listen to the easy-sounding advice of leftist political quacks – the inevitable result of which is the steady erosion of liberty and the deterioration of the economy – or the more sober, albeit often less cheery advice of conservatives.

If the electorate is looking for "easy", they will choose the leftist every time, with his gauzy, soothing promises of guarantees: universal everything, paid for, if at all, by someone else. It’s snake oil: it sounds great, akin to the "lose weight without dieting or exercise" scams, but it not only fails to cure the underlying problems, it worsens them.

Freedom works better than any alternative system, but one thing it isn’t, is easy. It requires individual responsibility and abjuring the temptation to take that which belongs to others. It means doing for yourself, or doing without. It means that one may always ask for help, but may never properly demand it. Freedom means the right to be left alone to pursue happiness as one sees fit but involves the reciprocal obligation to leave others alone to pursue happiness according to their own, peculiar fashion.

Leftists hate freedom because it produces unequal results and they don’t trust the people to ensure that their neighbors don’t starve. Leftists define compassion as a willingness to spend other people’s money on expensive governmental employees administering costly programs. But forcing the electorate to choose between a liberal Democrat and a liberal Republican, what incentive exists to pick the latter?

If power means everything, and principle nothing, picking some reassuring, mealy-mouthed "moderate" who refuses to address the actual threats to freedom might conceivably eke out an electoral victory. But to what end? The problems facing NJ – and the country – result from a surfeit of government. To solve those problems, government must shrink. Substantially. Power for its own sake serves no purpose; has the fact that George Bush has an ‘R’ after his name made him any less of a fiscal menace?

Our founding fathers were precisely the sort of pro-freedom radicals The Times excoriates. Our country needs a new birth of freedom, delivering it from the creeping socialism which has done so much to destroy the quality of life in New Jersey. Put simply, not even a nation as wealthy as the US can afford the government the left desires. Just as the people of NJ are slowly coming to understand that a quality life for anyone other than governmental employees depends upon keeping government small and inexpensive, so, too, the people of the US will come to that realization, too. The GOP should be tireless in its educational efforts, insisting upon the Common Sense of the proposition that freedom produces the greatest good for the greatest number.

Better to lose elections until then, championing the right, than win them by contributing to the problem.

Sense in the Strangest Places

Occasionally, one finds common sense in the strangest places. George McGovern, for instance, would not generally rank high on any conservative’s totem of places to turn for wisdom.

But there it is, in black and white.

McGovern writes today under the very conservative-sounding headline "Freedom Means Responsibility". His premise: that government should leave the people alone to decide how best to regulate their own affairs. If Bill Buckley weren’t dead, one might almost think he ghosted the article.

McGovern first notes his longstanding – and sagacious – opposition to "one size fits all" governmentally imposed regulations on business. (Although he didn’t mention it, one wonders how he would react to expensive foolishness like paid family leave.) He proceeds, lamenting the increasing tendency of paternalistic government to impose rules and regulations to protect people from themselves.

He notes, for example, that while subprime abuse existed, the vast majority of folks who secured such loans were unqualified for "prime" rates and, hence, benefitted from the program, obtaining loans not otherwise available.

He castigates states for insisting upon solid gold health insurance policies rather than permitting interstate shopping for coverage and rates the individual consumers desire and can afford.

He even finds time to condemn efforts to limit "payday lending", noting that, while expensive, paying the fees associated with such a loan is preferable to making a late credit card payment or bouncing checks.

Indeed, he writes:

"I've come to realize that protecting freedom of choice in our everyday lives is essential to maintaining a healthy civil society.

"Why do we think we are helping adult consumers by taking away their options? We don't take away cars because we don't like some people speeding. We allow state lotteries despite knowing some people are betting their grocery money. Everyone is exposed to economic risks of some kind. But we don't operate mindlessly in trying to smooth out every theoretical wrinkle in life.

"The nature of freedom of choice is that some people will misuse their responsibility and hurt themselves in the process. We should do our best to educate them, but without diminishing choice for everyone else."

Just so.

Kinda makes one wonder about the wisdom of those "Nixon" pins back in 1972. Instead of wisdom, like that published today, we got wage and price controls.

In each case, the erstwhile Senator hits the mark precisely, nowhere more accurately than with respect to health insurance. With costs skyrocketing, policies become increasingly unaffordable to employers and individuals, producing ever more uninsured. As McGovern notes, government should not restrict choice to a Mercedes or no car at all. Let the people decide what coverage they need and can afford. Instead, NJ insists of piling on mandates – coverage that people MUST purchase – and, then, the Left expresses concern at the increasing number of non-poor uninsured. Let people buy they policy they want, as opposed to the policy the Legislature believes they should have, and the number of uninsured will drop.

While I rather suspect that many of McGovern’s sillier views have not moderated in the last 35 years, it’s difficult to argue with him in his defense of freedom. Would that more members of his Party felt as passionate about freedom – and responsibility – as McGovern.