So what if we have incompatible and irreconcilable worldviews on our existence… can’t we still get along?

By the Lieutenant Colonel

I am troubled by those that are adamant about separating undesirable “beliefs” from the individuals that espouse them in the wishful endeavor to avoid physical confrontation at all cost.  I decided to write on this subject after reading this closing statement from a “conservative” blog article:

“They grasped the seriousness of their disagreement and found ways to hate the other side’s ideas without hating the individuals on the other side.  We can do the same with the political, religious, and secular Left in 2010.”  [1]

The “we can agree to disagree” and still be friends view is reasonable and admirable when the disagreement is over some benign “like or dislike” such as; I think that painting is beautiful, you think it is ugly.  Or, I’m a Steelers fan and you’re a Ravens fan.  Rational humans may have spirited discourse on their preferences, but will not come to blows over such things.  (Please note I said rational)

But when a disagreement is over irreconcilable and incompatible philosophies with a “my way or your way” outcome pertaining to one’s physical and mental state of existence in this world, a fight to determine which outcome prevails is inevitable unless there is a willingness by one party to acquiesce and submit.  Such disagreements sometimes smolder for a period as opponents struggle to coexistence, but they inevitably explode into conflict as opponents either employ self-defense or assert dominance to obtain resolution.  Such conflicts span human history. 

The preeminent irreconcilable struggle of human coexistence is between the social order boundaries of anarchy and tyranny.  Between these extremes are those that believe in individual liberty (God given inalienable rights) and personal property under a system of equal opportunity and justice under law and those that believe in statist collectivism and community property under a system of equal outcome and social justice.  One seeks maximum self determination and limited governance, the other, a utopian collective governed by a benevolent authoritarian system.  These views are diametrically opposed.  Whenever liberty triumphs statist collectivist coercions, the result is preservation of individual freedom, but whenever the statist collective triumphs, it is at the expense of liberty--and those that don’t want to acquiesce are forced into submission, incarcerated, or eliminated.

So, when it comes to my view on individuals or groups whose beliefs impose conditions that force me down “the road to serfdom” (With best intents for our wellbeing of course [2]), I can’t help but hold disdain for them.  They are a threat to my liberty, and therefore an enemy… how can I feign friendship or even just passively ignore them when they vigorously encroach upon me?  Then what is one to do, dispatch them…“the blood of tyrants”, well no!  (More on this in a follow-on article)  That is, if the defense of liberty is vigilant and uncompromising [3] while the fight can be bloodless as wisely stated by Winston Churchill…

"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival.  There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

Notes:

[1] R.J. Moeller (8 April 2010).  The Drama of Our Time, A Voice in the Wilderness-In Defense of “Mere Conservatism”, http://rjmoeller.com/category/uncategorized/page/2/

[2] Hayek, Friedrich August (1994).  The Road to Serfdom, University of Chicago Press

British writer C.S. Lewis (1898-1963) “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.  It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.  The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

[3] How can you compromise liberty?  You can’t… a point well explained by Buck Stienke in this post on Patriotpost.com, 6 Dec 2011.  “Colin Powell is wrong (about compromise with progressives in Congress) for a simple reason.  Tea Party unwillingness to compromise with a fundamentally un-American policy (Socialism) is no vice.  Compare it to a rapist's desire to have unlimited sex with your wife or child.  At what point would a "compromise" with the rapist's demand satisfy you?  A weekend?  A night?  How about only 30 minutes?  As I suspected, your unwillingness to compromise is no surprise.  Principles must be defended, even if the defense is not "civil".

[4] Winston Churchill (1948).  The Gathering Storm, p. 348, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH)

The Blunder of Nation Building Idealism

By the Lieutenant Colonel

President G. W. Bush’s version of progressive idealism implemented under the banner “Compassionate Conservatism” resulted in a Middle East foreign policy blunder.  He along with many in his administration believed Sadam Husain’s authoritarian regime repressed a population majority longing for “Democracy”.  The United States would nobly be liberators bringing democracy to the people while simultaneously eradicating the regime’s WMD threat to the region.  They naively believed that the concepts of liberty, tolerance, inalienable rights, responsible representative government, and basic human decency were universally sought if only given the chance to flourish.  Soon after the fall of Bagdad, the complexity of imparting (from the outside-in) largely foreign concepts of societal governance (Nation Building) quickly appeared.  Reaction in the U.S. spanned from, “uh-oh, get out quick and let them fend for themselves”, to “we broke it, and are morally obligated to fix it”.  After nearly nine years with extortionate costs in blood and treasure, it is still unknown whether a stable and lasting, free and democratic nation will endure.  There are few signs Iraq will be different in any way other than Sadam eventually replaced by another strongman in a pseudo election based on religious sects of Shia and Sunni (No Christians need apply).  Unfortunately, President Obama and his administration, infected with an even more zealous form of progressive idealism, are only multiplying the blunders with foreign policy schemes and/or military intervention in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Libya, Turkey, and where next???.

Admittedly, early on I was among those who once proclaimed cautious optimism about President Bush’s intentions as shown by this passage from a post I made to a 2004 on-line article critical of the Iraq War…  “We must be patient with the good folks I'm sure are present in Iraq.  Our independence was achieved by patriots who knew what liberty was, and understood what they were fighting for.  The scenario for the Iraqi people is much different; most have no experience with the concepts of liberty and representative democracy.  With time and education, their desire for liberty will flourish.”

I must concede the folly of my wishful thinking. It is a huge culture-centric miscalculation to think that ideas and values that evolved throughout millennia in the Western ideological environment of Judeo-Christian theology, Greek rationalism, and the European enlightenment… that roused Colonial America’s “Great Debate” and founding of a historically unique Constitutional Republic are somehow universal.  While some societies noticed the prosperity and individual freedoms of the United States, admired and subsequently adopted our Constitution’s doctrines in various forms, other society’s ideals and values were deeply rooted in their own cultural traditions.  The reality is that some society’s culture is completely contradictory to our most fundamental American principles of self-determination and entrepreneurship.  These principles are completely foreign to them, and in their view even threaten their cultures established “social order”.  Such is the Middle East where most see Islam as the “One” ultimate truth and Sharia the only law of the land.  No doubt there are a small number of people throughout the Middle East who somewhat understand and desire “Western” ideas of individual liberty and the governance needed to protect it, but they are truly an exception.

When observing the human misery and poverty inherent in other societies, we “feel” morally responsible to help these misfortunate people end tyranny and we want to “bestow” (i.e., give) them an opportunity for individual liberty that we know enabled our Democratic Republic to grow so prosperous.  However, the message from the Middle East has been overwhelmingly consistent and constant…when monarchs or dictators are overthrown and “popularist” democratic elections held, the masses turn to charismatic leaders and political movements; they substitute one form of tyranny for a seeming “benevolent” Islamic autocracy--they are immortally trapped by their religion that by definition demands to also be their government.  When the religion IS the government, the government by definition can’t be wrong because that would mean God was wrong…but God is not running the government, men are.  You can see the problem they face.  In “Palestine”, Hamas swept to power.  In Lebanon, Hezbollah brought down the moderate Lebanese government.  In Iran in 2005, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected.  In the Iraqi elections of 2010, the big winner was the anti-American Islamist Muqtada al-Sadr.  [1] When Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak allowed some electoral districts to be contested, the Muslim Brotherhood won most of them.  And now that he is ousted, Islamist overwhelmingly win the elections.  Afghanistan, a tribal society mess the Russians couldn’t subdue in ten years, but we’re the nice guys on the moral high-ground bringing democracy to all and will fare better…Now, yet once again, we can see how that is working out.

These people have little or no knowledge of and have no interest in finding out about Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Smith, or Burke.  They don’t have their own Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison or Washington, because these ideas and these men would be seen as an affront to Islam.  [1] They know only their ancient culture and what they are told is from the Koran (which of course no one can question without fear of having their head cut off).  There is a natural tendency for our society having progressed so far over the last couple of hundred years, to “feel” morally responsible to “fix it.” (And unfortunately our culture has come to believe that all problems can be solved in a one hour TV show, minus the 18 minutes of commercials?)  We are certainly naive to expect a different outcome in Iraq, Afghanistan or really any other country around the world than the one we see on our nightly news broadcast.

Post Script--“The Colonel” made an excellent comment regarding this article that I really wish I would have thought of, me being an avid Star Trek fan...

“Remember the Star Trek Prime Directive?  Even though the Enterprise had superior social and science development they were forbidden from interfering in the affairs of less developed cultures...see, even Hollywood of old recognized the dangers of such interventions.”--The Colonel

[1]  Note:  Inspired by or cited from various comments on “Welcome to the Islamist Middle East and It’s Not Going to Be Moderate”, Barry Rubin, PJMedia.com, entries October 2011.  http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2011/10/25/welcome-to-the-islamist-middle-east-and-its-not-going-to-be-moderate/

Bipartisanship, Compromise… Can’t We All Just Get Along? Ughhhh!

By the Lieutenant Colonel

On Sunday evening March 4^th I watched former Governor Mike Huckabee’s Forum 3 - Jobs, a Republican Presidential Candidates forum presented on the Fox News Channel.  I have to say that while the traditional “at a podium” television debate format does have a place (If the questions are not manipulative and biased), I would prefer to see more candidate “vetting” done using this type of “subject specific forum” style.  However, that is not the motivation for this article.

Three Ohio citizens made up one of the two panels that posed questions to the candidates.  One of the panelists was Ohio State University Senior Devin Largent, a self-proclaimed “Independent” voter.  Throughout the forum he asked thoughtful and relevant questions and he came across to me as a rather bright young man.  But, that impression did not last.  For the forums wrap-up, Gov. Huckabee asked the panelists their thoughts on how the candidates performed.  Devin was the last to respond…I was anticipating a thoughtful and intelligent assessment--instead, Devin’s response left me utterly flabbergasted and shaking my head! 

Devin it turns out was very disappointed that none of the candidates’ responses alleviated his foremost concern… the tone and partisanship of our political environment.  He said “maybe he is just an idealist” but feels what he sees from the political parties is only unproductive disharmony and bickering.  Devin said the candidates should be amicably bipartisan and willing to compromise.  Devin believes he’s an idealist, I think he’s troublingly naive.  Like many, Devin clearly can’t stomach that disagreement and conflict is a reality of the human condition, and shies away from it with wishful sentiment.  A pragmatist understands from the dawn of existence we have battled over competing ideas on how we should live and govern society.  Religious connotations aside, there is “good and evil” in human nature and no repetitive singing of John Lennon’s Imagine is going to produce a paradise of human serenity.  Moreover, the danger of conciliatory idealism is those who seek collective control and power over people at the expense of individual liberty harness this weakness to advance their own dogma and personal status.

Our Nation’s Founding Fathers understood human nature, examined historical civilizations and government constructs, and astutely crafted an unprecedented form of democratic republican government codified in our Constitution.  A vigorous debate ensued that required some compromise to achieve consensus, but the debate wasn’t about more or less liberty, but competing ideas on how best to protect it.  The Constitution was intentionally designed to protect maximum individual liberty and “inalienable rights” by trying to thwart the inevitable determinations of some to seize collective control and power.  But even this distinguished document was viewed with skepticism with regard to restraining the relentless lust for power as expressed in the writings of the Anti-Federalists.  As Benjamin Franklin left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, he was asked by Maryland delegate Dr. James McHenry, “Well, Doctor, what have we got -- a Republic or a Monarchy?”  Dr. Franklin revealed his own doubts when he famously replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”  He clearly understood that even this extraordinarily well-designed democratic republic would be entirely dependent upon the active and informed involvement of future generations of people resolutely dedicated to the ideas of individual liberty espoused by the Founders.

Two-hundred and twenty-five years ago this September the Constitution was sent to the States for ratification and this grand new experiment in republican government was born.  But regrettably, as the skeptics warned, the size and power of the Federal Government has undeniably grown over time to the detriment of individual liberty… by intermittent and small incursions in the first hundred years, and through more sweeping episodes of change ever since (i.e. Progressive Era, New Deal, Great Society, Hope & Change).  The foundational erosion of the obstacles to Federal power enumerated in the Constitution have always been done with calls for bipartisanship and compromise under the pretense of alleviating some presumed complex issue of “modern times” unforeseen by the Founders.  This flawed reasoning is once again in full force.

President Obama and the Democrats, frustrated by their stalled attempts to "fundamentally transform" the American system, are condemning the opposition with shrieks of foul play. Currently, Republicans, and Democrats favorite scapegoat the Tea Party, are organizations frequently accused of being "obstructionist" and "The Party of No," and of refusing to compromise just to spite Obama.  Furthermore, baseless accusations of every immoral prejudice and injustice are flung out for misdirection effect the way a magician uses sleight of hand to deceive the audience.  Obama, on the other hand, portrays himself as reasonable and conciliatory, merely asking for bipartisanship and compromise.  The politically squeamish, “can’t we all just get along” citizens like Devin facilitate this false narrative that veils the erosion of liberty and rush to state collectivism, whether they realizes it or not.

Food-Banks Expand to Feed More Needy People… but Don’t Feed the Bears

By the Colonel

The same people who are deeply involved with teachers unions, the ACLU, protecting wild animals (especially those cute furry polar bears), global warming and saving our National Parks from those tourist people…are working hard to expand local food banks that feed so many needy people. At first glance, this seems a very worthy cause and who could be so mean as to oppose expanding local food banks? However, as we have learned over and over again through experience, intentions are not actual outcomes.

The analogy that popped into my head as I watched the TV interviewer talking to one of the volunteer leaders of the Washington DC food bank was wild animals at our state parks and the signs everywhere warning us, “Please don’t feed the animals.” But we love to feed the little chipmunks, they are so cute and what harm could a couple of peanuts do anyway? Now the park rangers have taken time to explain that they are not just trying to be mean to the animals or the visiting tourist, they are just trying to protect the animals. The Ranger explained that if the tourist feed the animals, the animals would forget how to feed themselves and become totally dependent on the park tourist. Then in the off-season when there are very few tourists, the animals will starve to death because the food source they have been conditioned to live on is not available. Why then is the Washington DC food bank expanding to make more and more of the poorest Washington DC population totally dependent on the food bank? Would it make more sense to leave nature’s human internal motivation in tact and instead help the poorest Washington DC residents learn to feed themselves? Remember a famous Confucian saying, “give a man a fish and he is fed for one day, teach a man to fish and he is fed forever.” 

The problem with most liberals is they do not accept human nature as it is, they see humans as they want them to be. But as Einstein said, facts are stubborn things. What motivates people is individual self-interest and while that might sound selfish I do not believe it is, I think it is an honest assessment of human history.  Every collective or communal experiment throughout history except for a few monasteries has failed (and even monasteries have a hierarchical rank order). A comparison of our Revolutionary War based on individual liberty and the French Revolution based on the community (fraternity) shows the French Revolution was a bloodbath that led to total anarchy and ruin. Communism has failed in every nation that tried it; even Russia and China are currently trying to allow capitalistic economy while trying to maintain an autocratic dictatorship.

The bottom line seems so simple I wonder at the resistance mounted against it…individual responsibility and opportunity lead to growth and prosperity while “statism,” the “government” or “community” (organizers) lead to phantom rulers in the shadows making decisions for everyone…since they know best what everyone should do and have. These elitist so-called liberal rulers give we citizens “peanuts,” we get use to and become totally dependent on their peanuts and then we lose our independence…we can no longer take care of ourselves and must depend on our self-appointed elitist rulers for everything. Since they can give us peanuts or take the peanuts away, we will have become slaves.

I, for one, want to remain hungry for as short a time as possible until I can feed myself and my family…when times are tough I will work more diligently, do anything I need to do…become creative, innovative and solve our problems. Don’t we want people to be motivated to create and innovate? Patrick Henry’s words were inspiring during the early days of the American Revolution and are still today, “give me liberty or give me death.” I would add that we should “take” liberty because no one can give us liberty…liberty is a decision we make in our hearts. So instead of expanding the food bank, let’s expand the individual responsibility and opportunity that always reduce the need for food banks…instead of just handing the poorest of Washington DC more peanuts and dependence.