Conservative Populism

Glenn Beck can be both illuminating and infuriating. As an example of the latter, he recently made a statement on his radio show that the states have a right to institute universal health care, hand out free cars, etc. if the citizens of that state want such things. He stated that the federal government is barred from such actions, but the states are not. In other words, he is not opposed to violating individual rights; he just wants it done on a more local level.

This is a typical approach by conservatives. They do not oppose government power over the lives and property of individuals. They just want that power to be exercised by state and local governments. To these conservatives, universal health care, entitlement programs, and business regulation are perfectly acceptable, so long as they are implemented on the state level.

This unprincipled thinking is primarily why the Republicans have lost control of Congress. They occasionally oppose violations of individual rights on the federal level (and even then that opposition is precarious and inconsistent) but not on the local level. They do not challenge the premise that the individual must be forced to sacrifice for the "common good"--they merely want to argue over who will make that determination.

If the people want it, Beck said, then virtually anything goes on the state level. But why does he apply this only to the states, while denying such power to the federal government? Beck's answer is: The Constitution.

The Constitution limits the power of the federal government, but not the states. The Tenth Amendment reserves for the states those powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. According to Beck, while the federal government has limited powers, the state governments do not. This isn't a defense of individual rights; it is an invitation for the states to establish fifty separate tyrannies.

Beck is not opposed to government using coercion to implement the "will of the people". Whatever his good points (and there are many), Beck does not defend individual rights as a matter of principle. For all of his talk about honor and integrity, he is sadly lacking in rational principles.

Recently Beck has been attacking the Progressive Movement from the late 1800s and early 1900s, as well as its current manifestations, and rightfully so. But ironically he shares some of that movement's basic premises. The Progressives, largely animated by German Idealism, argued that "the people" should have a greater voice in government. Beck, who is animated by religious mysticism, concurs, only he wants that voice to be expressed in the state capitols rather than in Washington.

Beck demonstrates why conservatives are losing the intellectual battle. They have accepted the same basic premises as the Left, and they just want to bicker over the details. They aren't opposed to slavery, they just want the masters to be closer to home.

When Self-Defense is Wrong

Chronicle columnist Rick Casey has joined the chorus in decrying the influence of money in politics:

Imagine how many congressmen Goldman Sachs could make quake if it quietly let it be known it had decided to divert just 10 percent of the $16.2 billion in employee bonuses it has budgeted this year to retaliate against any of them who supported Obama's proposed reforms.

Casey believes that it is fine if the government issues more edicts to control banks and other financial institutions, but if those same businesses wish to defend themselves it is wrong. He would prefer that they meekly accept whatever mandates Washington hands down. He would prefer that they just shut up and take it.

Casey--like others who issue such claims--implies that politicians are more interested in getting elected than doing what is right. And I would agree with him on that point. However, I disagree with Casey on the meaning of "doing what is right".

For Casey this means enacting the "will of the people" or some similar nonsense. For Casey anything that involves more controls, regulations, edicts, or mandates are "right", and more individual freedom is wrong. Indeed, the Supreme Court ruling that he finds so distasteful actually extended some measure of freedom to the individuals who own businesses.

Speaking of Texas' limitations on corporate political donations, Casey writes:

Even without those First Amendment rights, insurance companies and other corporations in Texas have been able to buy a state Supreme Court and Legislature once wholly owned by plaintiffs' attorneys.

If this is true, why isn't Casey attacking corrupt jurists and legislators? If it is true that the Supreme Court and Legislature have been bribed by corporations, why is Casey only concerned about the corporations? The fact is, Casey accepts the politics of pull that are inevitable in a mixed economy. He just doesn't want businesses involved in the struggle for political power.

Casey concludes his article:

The power struggle won't be between the states and the federal government. It will be between the citizens and the corporations.

To Casey politics, and life, is a power struggle. The only issue is who will be the combatants. He refuses to identify the nature of the power that awaits those who win--the power to dictate, regulate, and control the lives of the citizenry. He refuses to consider the possibility that individuals can live together peacefully.

A government limited to its proper function--the protection of individual rights--is prohibited from initiating force against its citizens (as are all individuals). Such a limitation removes the power struggle that Casey regards as a metaphysical given.

But Casey is not concerned about individual rights. He has no problem with the First Amendment rights of business owners being trampled. I wonder if he would be so giddy if it were his First Amendment rights, or those of his corporate employer, that were violated. If he isn't careful, we might find out. If he isn't willing to defend the rights of other individuals, his rights may be next on the chopping block.

Another Textbook Controversy

In March the Texas State Board of Education will make recommendations regarding textbooks for the state's 4.7 million public school students. The elected board is already creating controversy over standards it has accepted, such as restoring Christmas as an example of an important religious celebration and excluding mention of the League of United Latin American Citizens.

Critics are claiming that the board has become an avenue for social conservatives to push their political agenda. The Chronicle reported:

The Texas Freedom Network, an Austin-based group which monitors public education in Texas, complained about "blatant politicization of social studies curriculum."

"When partisan politicians take a wrecking ball to the work of teachers and scholars, you get a document that looks more like a party platform than a social studies curriculum," said Kathy Miller, president of the group.

This shouldn't be surprising. The very nature of the State Board of Education makes it a political entity. Backed by government force, the board determines what is taught in the state's schools, and its edicts are imposed on all students. Anyone who thinks that this won't become a magnet for special interest groups is extremely naive, dishonest, or both.

The entire public school system is dependent upon force. Revenues are obtained through confiscatory taxation. "Customers", i.e. students, are obtained through compulsory attendance laws. The curriculum is imposed by the State Board. The result is predictable--special interest groups competing to wield the reigns of power.

While home-schooling and private schools are certainly an alternative to the public schools, for many families these are not practical options. Both can impose significant financial hardships on parents, particularly when they are forced to financially support a failing public school system. Such families are left to the mercy of politicians and bureaucrats, who have the power to decide what their children are taught.

The education of one's children is one of the most important tasks of parenthood. Yet most parents have little choice in the matter. Their own judgment is rendered moot. When conservatives are in control, the children of Leftists are forced to learn about Phyllis Schlafly and the Moral Majority. When Leftists are in control, the children of conservatives are forced to learn about La Raza and alternative lifestyles. No matter who is in control, someone will be unhappy.

The solution is to put parents back in control of their children's education. The solution is to abolish public education and let parents decide what their children will be taught.

Government's only legitimate purpose is the protection of individual rights--the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Government's purpose is not the indoctrination of children, which will invariably occur when government dictates the curriculum in the schools.

Of course, the Leftists who are criticizing the current textbook proposals are not interested in ceding such control. Despite their rhetoric, their complaints are not aimed at government's virtual monopoly on education, but how that monopoly is currently being exercised. Fundamentally, the criticisms from the Left are not about education, but about power.