Last Chance to Stop “Crown Jewel of Socialism”
Posted by Walter Scott Hudson, Today, 07:22 AM in Political
contributed to the New Patriot Journal:
Opponents of a government takeover of health care have less than two weeks to stop “the crown jewel of socialism,” according to Representative Michele Bachmann, congresswoman for Minnesota’s sixth district. Bachmann spoke Monday on Hot Tea Radio, a production associated with Tea Party Patriots and this publication. Addressing questions from co-hosts C.L. Bryant and Rob Gaudet, along with several callers, Bachmann detailed an urgent legislative scenario.
“The president recognizes his time is short,” said Bachmann. “He has not been listening to the American people, and he won’t be, because he’s made it clear – his interest is not doing what the American people want done. His interest is doing what he wants done. He believes in socialized medicine… [it] is the crown jewel of socialism. He recognizes that if they pass socialized medicine, we will forever be a politically Left country… because people will get used to these entitlement benefits.”
Congresswoman Bachmann was doubtful the fight over abortion language among Democrats would ultimately preclude abortion coverage. Even if the Stupak amendment makes it into the bill, Bachmann pointed out there would still be “tens of thousands of pages of unwritten regulations that the new health care czar and the current Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, will write.”
Bachmann stressed the difficulty of attempting to challenge or repeal the bill once passed. According to Bachmann’s understanding of the bill, the “individual mandate” requiring all persons to purchase health insurance will not apply to people in the country illegally. While Bachmann anticipates a lawsuit would eventually be brought to challenge this, she said the amount of time for such a suit to gain traction would see massive tax increases and irreparable damage to both the economy and personal liberty.
Even without the passage of the health care bill, America is on track to reach the precarious economic position of Greece, Bachmann said. Greece may be bailed out by Germany and other EU nations. If the United States collapses, Bachmann claimed there is no one to bail it out. She prescribed drastically cutting both taxes and spending.
Along with the price of the policy, corruption of the process was also feared. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is “wielding her power” to “arm-twist” Democratic members, Bachmann said. In her position as speaker, Pelosi can distribute committee chairs to both threaten and entice. Bachmann’s Minnesota colleague John Kline echoed the same sentiment during a Saturday interview on the Northern Alliance Radio Network. The White House is likewise suspected of ethically questionable deal-making. Bachmann referenced a March 3rd article in the Weekly Standard questioning the administration’s appointment of the brother of Congressmen Jim Matheson of Utah to an appellate judgeship. Author John McCormick called the timing of the appointment “suspicious.” Bachmann stated such deal-making would not be unprecedented in the process of passing health care reform, citing Senator Ben Nelson’s now infamous “Cornhusker Kickback,” among other examples.
Bryant briefly deviated to the subject of cap-and-trade, energy legislation which would turn carbon-dioxide emissions into an artificial commodity to combat perceived anthropogenic global warming. The two issues are related insofar as both involve government control of major segments of the economy. Cap-and-trade would turn over 8% of the US economy to the government, Bachmann stated. She claimed an Arizona University researcher had determined the government has taken over 30% of the economy with the various bailouts. Healthcare would be an additional 18%. If cap-and-trade passed as well, the total would come to 56%. Bachmann speculated monthly energy costs in homes could double or triple, and prices could increase for all products, since all require energy to come to market.
Asked by Mark Meckler, co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, how grassroots activists might best influence the vote on health care, Bachmann prescribed visits to congressional member’s local district offices. “Ask for a personal meeting where you can look in the eyes of your representative,” Bachmann urged. “There’s absolutely nothing like hearing from your constituents.” Bachmann declared her belief the health care bill will be the most important piece of legislation members vote on in their lifetime. She advocated placing pressure on Democratic congresspeople, no matter how liberal they are. “Nobody is above being approached, as a member of Congress… they serve you, not themselves.”
A rally against the proposed health care legislation will be held in St. Paul on the steps of the state capitol Saturday at noon. Bachmann is scheduled to speak at the event, along with Citizens’ Council on Health Care president Twila Brace, and others yet to be announced.
Tea Party Should Shrug Off Atlas
Posted by Walter Scott Hudson, Mar 9 2010, 07:43 AM in Society and Culture
contributed as an Op-Ed to the New Patriot Journal:
Tea Partiers should be wary of the ideology underlying a novel popular within the movement. Signs reading “Who is John Galt?” became a common sight at rallies last year. They reference Atlas Shrugged, a novel by Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, which is considered an affirmation of individual rights and the free market. However, according to a central advocate of Rand’s worldview, there is a deeper message within the novel which the Tea Party must embrace if it hopes to affect libertarian change.
On February 23rd, in a lecture hall at the University of Minnesota, Rand advocate Craig Biddle, editor of The Objective Standard and author of “Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It,” delivered a presentation entitled “Capitalism: The Only Moral Social System.” Biddle argued capitalism is the only system which recognizes the requirements for human life. Those requirements, according to the Objectivist philosophy Biddle advocates, are productivity and rational thought.
To illustrate this, Biddle offered the hypothetical situation of a man deserted on a remote island. In order to survive, the castaway would need food, shelter, and clothing. In order to obtain those provisions, the castaway would need to act productively, to take action based on his own judgment to meet his needs. The only thing which could prevent the castaway from acting on his own judgment would be externally applied force, which Biddle represented with a hypothetical brute likewise stranded on the island. If the brute tied the castaway to a tree, or demanded all or part of the castaway’s production in tribute, the castaway would not be free to act on his own judgment.
To this point, the arguments of Objectivism fit neatly with those prevalent in the Tea Party movement. Both hold the protection of individual rights to be the legitimate role of government. However, Biddle claimed this similarity is not enough. Asked during a question and answer session how the Tea Party might effectively advocate for capitalism, Biddle prescribed a shift in morality. The altruism promoted in the Judeo-Christian ethic is antithetical to the egoism inherent to capitalism, Biddle said.
It is crucial to note, by altruism, Biddle does not mean mere charity. By altruism, Biddle means “living for the other” in a sacrificial manner. Sacrifice for the “collective good” is the rallying call of the tyrant, Biddle said, citing examples in the rhetoric of Hitler among others. He claimed, as long as Tea Partiers “keep going to church on Sunday,” their morality will remain in conflict with their political objectives. This sentiment, acknowledged by Biddle as controversial, is indicative of a larger hostility in Objectivism toward religion.
Expounding upon this, a commenter responding to a New Patriot Journal report of the lecture wrote:
Therein lies the limitation of Objectivism, which it shares with science. Reality is not limited to that which can be physically perceived. To declare otherwise is analogous to a society of blind men precluding the existence of light. The condescending disdain for mysticism, which Objectivism seems to foster in its adherents, seems to preclude the existence of anything which is not already known. This seems as foolhardy as when the religious sometimes deny the obvious in preference of a previously interpreted revelation (i.e. there were no dinosaurs).
It is not true that anything supernatural, such as God, cannot exist because there is no “contextual” evidence. To the contrary, it would be irrational to assume a Cause of Nature would be itself natural. Revealed knowledge may be outside the scope of Objectivism. But there is no natural law which requires reality to conform to an Objectivist paradigm. To the contrary, nature suggests causal relationships. For every effect, there is a cause. This suggests a Cause of Nature, which would be necessarily supernatural. The Creator could not be part of Creation, and therefore not bound by the laws which govern Creation.
A second point worth considering is derived from John Locke’s property acquisition theory, which Biddle evoked as consistent with Objectivism. Locke argued property is created by the infusion of an individual’s thought and effort into raw materials. For instance, if a potter takes some clay and forms it into a pot, he owns that pot. This raises a question which Objectivism ignores. If a pot belongs to a potter, to whom does the clay belong? Who created the potter? Objectivism ignores these questions because they require speculation beyond the boundaries of the philosophy. That is to be expected. Math likewise avoids questions beyond the scope of numbers. Yet, again, there is no reason to conclude all which is knowable must be perceived through a single limited discipline. Were a mathematician to claim there is no such thing as “beauty” because he cannot define it with an equation, he would be rightly regarded as ill.
Objectivism seems to perceive the Judeo-Christian ethic based on its own presumptions rather than the testimony of believers. Why do those among the Tea Party movement who profess religion see no conflict between their religious call to altruism and their civil promotion of liberty and capitalism? The answer is because the matter of whether a man should sacrifice for others is wholly separate from whether he ought to be forced. Indeed, the ultimate value of freedom is the capacity to give meaningfully, to serve whom one chooses.
Bring Home The Politicians
Posted by Walter Scott Hudson, Mar 8 2010, 07:14 AM in Podcast
<Click here for the podcast>
There is an idea floating around you may not have heard of. It's called e-Congress, or decentralization. Utilizing state-of-the-art telecommunications technology, legislative bodies would conduct business via teleconference rather than gathering at the state and national capitols. Sound crazy? The military has been operating this way for years. So have major corporations. Fightin Words welcomes Michael Norbury of BringHomeThePoliticians.com to discuss the idea, tackle objections, and explore how it may become reality.
Later in the podcast, we reflect upon the civil rights struggle of the 1960's, and how it served to degrade state's rights and discredit constitutional federalism. Americans of every race have paid a price since. Liberty is not so much freedom as self-governance; a lack of moral fortitude invites tyranny.
<Click here for the podcast>
“Coffee Party” Accepts Invitation to Tea
Posted by Walter Scott Hudson, Mar 3 2010, 05:48 PM in Political
contributed to the New Patriot Journal:
MINNEAPOLIS, MN – A citizen activist group antagonistic to the political goals of the Tea Party movement has nonetheless indicated a willingness to converse. In what may be characterized as “the sincerest form of flattery,” video documentarian Annabel Park weeks ago created the “Coffee Party Movement.” Despite its relatively brief existence, it has already garnered significant media attention, most notably in recent articles by the New York Times and Washington Post. Over the weekend, an open letter was addressed to Park by a member of the Tea Party movement (this writer) welcoming “civility and inclusiveness in political discourse,” a nod to one of the Coffee Party’s stated goals. Alongside public replies from Coffee Partiers, Park responded privately, indicating a desire to bring tea and coffee drinkers together for debate and discussion.
The Coffee Party is a product of the new media. Park, in her own words, “kinda lost it” and “started ranting” in her Facebook profile regarding her frustration at the perception of the Tea Party as being representative of the majority of Americans. The Washington Post reported the status update which started it all:
The primary gripe emanating from Park is her perception of the Tea Party movement, and conservative legislators in Washington, as “obstructionist.” In a YouTube video introducing the Coffee Party to the world, Park says, “We want to see cooperation among people in Congress, in government. And we want to see people who are representing us move towards solutions to the problems, instead of strategically obstructing any form of progress.”
Park concurs with the sentiment expressed by liberal commentators like Stephanie Miller and Bill Press, who accuse Republicans of opposing President Obama’s progressive agenda only as an electoral strategy, excluding the possibility there may be fundamental principled disagreement. Park indicates a desire to “hold people accountable for obstructing progress in government.” She sees a dichotomy between “cooperation” and “obstruction,” holding the former to be necessary for government to work for the People. She calls for “everyone to be engaged in the political process” and makes reference to government as an instrument of the “collective will.” At the same time, she defiantly pleads for certain “people to get out of the way.”
In the open letter to Park, her perception of the Tea Party movement was challenged:
…
We can negotiate. We are willing to achieve consensus. There is, however, a clear framework within which such consensus must be bound – the Constitution of the United States.
Response to the letter from self-identified members of the Coffee Party has been mostly gracious. “I’m a member of the Coffee Party and I appreciate your letter,” wrote a commenter identifying himself as Marvin. “If we could have more civil debate I think this country could move forward.” Jim Yost wrote, “I don’t agree with a lot of the [Tea Party]’s stances on many critical issues, but I do agree that Washington is broken, and I do think that we all can and should work together to change as much in our system as we can so that our differences can be worked out productively.”
To that end, tentative arrangements are being made for a meeting in the Twin Cities area between members of these disparate activist groups. Potential points of consensus include the imposition of term limits, a desire for citizen legislators as opposed to career politicians, and a general call for accountability among public officials.
Bringing Tea to the Coffee Party
Posted by Walter Scott Hudson, Mar 1 2010, 07:46 AM in Political
The Washington Post contained an article Friday detailing an emerging counter to the Tea Party movement. It has been billed the Coffee Party. The following is an open letter to its founder, Los Angles based video documentarian Annabel Park:
Please accept my congratulations regarding the establishment of your citizen activist group. I understand the Coffee Party is “very grass-roots, [with] no official organization.” These are characteristics shared with its elder counterpart, the Tea Party movement.
As an active participant in the latter, I would like to extend an olive branch to pursue your stated goal of “[promoting] civility and inclusiveness in political discourse.” Based on the article chronicling your group’s formation in Friday’s Washington Post, I believe you may hold a couple big misconceptions regarding the Tea Party movement and the philosophy which drives it. I would like to address these with the objective of promoting understanding, not necessarily agreement. I am under no delusion we will see eye-to-eye on specific issues, but hope you agree there is value in accurately understanding that with which you disagree.
First, a disclaimer is required. I do not speak for the Tea Party movement, as I imagine you cannot claim to speak for your cohort. I share my perspective with the caveat other Tea Partiers may disagree. Similarly, I do not expect you to answer for the claims of others, but feel compelled to address those reported in the Washington Post.
Let us begin with a point of consensus. I agree wholeheartedly with the statement of your colleague in the “LA Speaks” YouTube video. “There is a great divisive culture between the two [major political] parties now. The healthy environment of a conversation has almost completely evaporated.” I believe healthy conversation is possible. However, a crucial prerequisite is a common goal. If, by conversation, your cohort means an avenue toward clear understanding, that is achievable. If, however, the objective is consensus on specific issues, that may not be achievable. As we shall explore here, there are fundamental principles underlying the Tea Party movement which cannot be compromised.
The greatest misconception your side seems to have of the Tea Party is its “obstructionist” nature. The Washington Post describes a goal to “obstruct reform and discourage thoughtful deliberation.” One of the speakers in your video claims the Tea Party “[wants] the status quo” or “wants things to stay the same.” Another states she is “fatigued by the obstruction of the progress of the Obama government.” This idea that the Tea Party is against progress is untrue, if by “progress” we are referring to positive change in the conduct and quality of life. We simply disagree regarding the origin of progress. The Coffee Party seems to think it comes from government. The Tea Party believes progress can only derive from people, and too much government obstructs it.
Dave Henderson is quoted in the Washington Post article as saying, “The political mood right now is ‘blame Obama for everything.’” This is also untrue. The president is not the sole focus of the movement’s ire. Republicans are also highly criticized for the failure of many to adhere to their articulated principles. As you may have noted in recent weeks, the collective response among the Tea Party to claims staked by the GOP has been a cry of foul. While individual Tea Partiers such as myself may opt to participate in the Republican Party, the emergent consensus among the movement is a desire to remain non-partisan, decentralized, and inclusive of disparate activist groups unified by a few core principles. As Robert Gaudet relates in the Post article, those principles include “fiscal responsibility, free markets, [and constitutionally] limited government.”
Here we return to the point about obstruction. Presumably, when your cohort bemoans an obstruction of progress, they refer predominately to the health care reform debated in Washington over the past year. On this issue and others, Republicans have been characterized as “the party of ‘no.’” Conservatives and libertarians as a whole, represented in overlapping parts by the GOP, the Tea Party movement, independents, and even some Democrats, have been accused of being unwilling to negotiate. We can negotiate. We are willing to achieve consensus. There is, however, a clear framework within which such consensus must be bound – the Constitution of the United States.
It has become popular in the culture to advocate “thinking outside the box.” Indeed, there are many opportunities in life where unconstrained thinking may lead to innovative solutions. However, there are certain contexts in which innovation must always be constrained. If, for instance, you entertain the hypothetical question of what you might do with a million dollars, the answer, while perhaps enlightening in some existential way, is of limited practical use without actually having the million dollars. In America, government is similarly constrained. It must operate within the “box” of constitutional limitations. When proposals venture beyond those constraints, consensus is not possible. One team cannot blame the other for refusing to play outside the bounds.
I hope you found something of value here, and invite further correspondence if you fill it could be productive. One issue where our movements appear to agree is term limits and the need for citizen legislators. There may be other points of commonality which can be discovered through the civil political discourse you crave.
Sincerely,
Walter Scott Hudson