Liberal Fascism

Teaching political science to my students, I would typically draw a continuum of political monikers that looked something like this with the extreme liberal as Radical and the extreme conservative as Reactionary.

According to the typical definition, the Radical (1) places high trust in human nature, (2) sees change in culture or institutions as progress and (3) holds individual freedom as paramount.

At the other end of the continuum is the Reactionary. He is (1) distrustful of human nature, (2) places great trust in tradition and institutions and (3) sees individual freedom as important, but subject to social mores.

The ideal government of the Radical is anarchy or communism, the ideal of the Reactionary is fascism. (Pop Quiz: Which governmental system has been given much more time by books, movies, etc., outlining and examining the atrocities? Which governmental system killed more people in the last century? What do you think is the cause of the discrepancy? Please comment!)

All this has been radically altered in the last twenty years by everyone's favorite generation, the Boomers. The arrogant idealism of the 60's has revealed the lie in these definitions. The Boomers as a generation are so arrogant that they truly do believe that, even though they don't trust institutions in general, their institutions should be trusted. Individual freedom is paramount, but only according to their definition.

So, now we have this thought process that not only promotes individual liberties, but forces others to not only accept, but to approve of and participate in the exercise of those (contrived) liberties. This is the essence of collectivism, found in both communism and fascism.

Which brings me to Jonah Goldberg's new book, Liberal Fascism. I don't believe it's out yet, but Glenn Reynolds said that

Goldberg has a lot to say about the “progressive” roots of both socialism and fascism and the way they’re reflected in contemporary politics.

If you go to the above link, Glenn conducted a very interesting interview with a good discussion on the content of the book. See some rough notes of the interview below:

Mr. Goldberg encourages people to read Hillary's It Takes a Village. Her vision of a village is a "profoundly totalitarian one...in which the helping professions are empowered to intervene to smash the sanctity of the family." Quoted Woodrow Wilson in saying that "educator's job is to make children as unlike their parents as possible." No natural boundary where the state stops and the family begins -- no islands of "separateness"--"if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem - very fascistic."

Referring to the nice liberalism that just wants to help..."An unwanted hug is still an oppressive thing -- soft totalitarianism is still dangerous."

Compares the platform of 1932 Nazis with 1972 McGovern - practically the same minus the ethnic Jewish hatred. From the beginning, Nazis were socialists.

Left wing believes that they are the arbiters of political morality.

He also see "compassionate conservative" as being dangerously close to Liberal Fascism. It works on the assumption that the government can love you...It can't...It's not your daddy or mommy. Talks about Huck coming from the classic social gospel position.

Nationalism and Socialism is the same thing...when you nationalize health care, you socialize it.

Great Interview...listen to it, then buy the book!

Limited Government Lessons

Davey Crockett as a congressman learned a valuable lesson from one of his constituents. Crockett had proposed to have Congress pay an amount of $20,000 to a widow of a service member. His constitutent, Mr. Bunce addresses this with him

So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.

It's a great story and demonstrates how easily corruption sneaks in through the guise of charity when giving other people's money. Obvious current examples FEMA, Medicare and Medicaid are just a few of the easy targets created when the people's money is being passed around by programs run by bureaucrats.

Liberty and Christianity Part I - Render “What” Unto Caesar?

As a Christian anarcho-libertarian, I wrestle continuously with the passages of scripture regarding the relationship and authority of secular government within the human realm. To many of my brothers and sisters, these scriptures putatively ascribe divine endorsement for the State, whatever that is.

The subject has been discussed in my friend Doug Bandow’s wonderful book Beyond Good Intentions, and elsewhere. Those discussions have always proved to be unsatisfactory to me and insufficient for me to arrive at a comfortable level of understanding and enaction.

In the upcoming essay “On Christian Citizenship” I will turn my attentions to those passages that appear to promote the legitimacy of civil authorities such as Romans 13 (almost universally misinterpreted), but for the moment I’m sticking to the memorable passage from Matthew 22.

15. Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
16. And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
17. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18. But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19. Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21. They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Living as a believer of more than 40 years and among conservative evangelicals, I have always been surrounded by this tension of competing yet simultaneous citizenships. I am a member of the human race, a citizen of the nation-state USA, and a redeemed child of God. One urges me to be humane (usually without objectively defining it), another to be lawful, yet another to be righteous.

Recently I have gone back to the to the question of “Rendering therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s.” Perhaps as a result of living as a hostage through the reign of Xlintoon and contemplating its reprise, I wonder exactly what does that phrase mean?

The “render” part I get without difficulty. But what about “that which is Caesar’s?” I have no desire to be sacrilegious, but is it as superficial as the old economics joke punch line, “You can set the tax rate as long as I get to determine what is taxable”?

Who gets to say “What Caesar’s” is?

I am not talking about the instances where Caesar is explicitly commanding us to place him above God, to violate directly our duties to faith and obedience to God as we live out our lives of devotion and ministry. Only in the radical religious Left is there any sense that Caesar trumps God at all times.

“That which is Caesar’s” could have two very distinct and dramatically different meanings. The first, a materialistic view, could be paraphrased “that which is owned by Caesar.”

The second meaning, a more ephemeral construct, might be expressed as “those areas of human activity where Caesar has legitimate authority to regulate and control that behavior.” And, in fact, the vast majority of civil laws follows the latter model. Ideally, and mostly in practice, law serves to tell us what we cannot do that we would rather do if left to our own inclinations. This principle has been augmented (and corrupted) by the notion that law also requires us to do that which we would rather not do.

Yet a third concept, and the basis for all modern government, is that the State serves as the catalyst and vehicle for taking the property of one person or entity and transferring it to another to whom it does not belong and who has no rightful claim to it. [ed. note: See Bastiat's The Law for a discussion on "legal plunder."]

Let’s return to an analysis of “What Caesar’s is” first in the material, then in the behavioral realm.

Material

Am I Caesar’s property? Is my mind? Is my labor and its fruit? Are my possessions his property?

As a practical matter of realpolitik and societal circumstances, the answer might be “yes,” but the coercion of politics is not the same thing as legitimate authority. Caesar may treat me as chattel and confiscate my abilities, my labors, and my possessions at the point of a gun, but that doesn’t make it legitimately his. One thing is certain: Scripture is explicitly clear about the role of self, talents, labor, and property in righteous stewardship. These things are not Caesar’s. They are God’s, entrusted to humans to use as wise stewards in His service.

But what about those who are not believers, who don’t accept the Lordship of Elohim and Logos in their lives? It doesn’t matter. Acknowledging or not acknowledging God cannot be the determining factor is describing the relationship of a citizenry to its civil authorities. To argue otherwise would be to justify the notion that “equal protection under the law” is an abhorrent idea. Caesar does not own us, he does not own our talents, he does not own our labors, he does not own our property regardless of our relationship to God.

Behavior

But what about the realms of behavior? Doesn’t Caesar have a legitimate authority to control that? Absolutely yes. Emphatically no. The distinction, and ensuing confusion, descends from competing visions of “What behavior?” and “Who is controlled?”

While Scripture has a clear message for what human behavior should be, it is far more focused on what behavior must be for certain humans, namely the Remnant of believers, who are commanded to righteousness. The principles of general human behavior are codified in the Ten Commandments. This becomes even more specific in the New Testament exhortations on living devout lives. It is a set of instructions on how Christians should, and in some cases, must, live, not how their pagan neighbors should or must live.

In so doing, Scripture is drawing a distinction between righteousness and lawfulness, and sin and crime.

Caesar's Owns Almost Nothing

But what is the right and ultimate purpose of Caesar? To, protect me from myself, or to protect me from others, and them from me? Things I do to myself, or in concert with other willing participants, may be sinful but not necessarily criminal. On the other hand, behaviors I inflict on others who are unwilling participants, may certainly be sinful and criminal, and are therefore a legitimate area of “that which is Caesar’s.”

Since the passage in Matthew explicitly mentions currency, it is fair to conclude that transactions involving state-sponsored currency are also arenas falling under Caesar’s authority. But what about transactions based on bullion, or private scrip, or barter?

In the end, I have derived the following understanding of that “Which is Caesar’s.”

1. Caesar has the legitimate authority to protect us from each other. That’s about it.
2. He does not own me, although he may, as a practical matter, enslave me by force.
3. He does not own my time, talents, and labor, although he may, as a practical matter, conscript me illegitimately.
4. He doesn’t own my possessions, although he may extort or confiscate them at the point of a gun.

I now have no internal conflict about “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's” because that which is Caesar’s is almost nothing. In everything else I owe no allegiance to him, and do not feel compelled to render anything.

-DCW

Two Sides of the Same Coin

Walter Willliams on the legitimate role of government:

Look around the world: you will see that what receives the least care tends to be commonly owned; that which receives the best care tends to be privately owned. In free markets one's personal wealth is held hostage to socially responsible behavior. To take another example, the citizens of New York derive their daily meals not from the benevolence of the Missouri farmer (who may in fact hate New Yorkers) but because it is in his own private self-interest to supply them. Most things get done because of self interest and private property rights.

Widespread government ownership and/or control of property is the antithesis of voluntary exchange. Government is the major source of forced exchanges, the most prominent of which is taxation.

Hugo Chavez

President Hugo Chavez called for radical changes to Venezuela's constitution Wednesday night, proposing reforms that would eliminate current limits on his re-election and extend presidential terms.

Chavez, speaking to the National Assembly, said presidential terms should be extended from six to seven years. Chavez also proposed ending autonomy of Venezuela's central bank, which would give him access to billions of dollars from the banks reserves, creating new types of property that would be managed by cooperatives and creating "a popular militia" that would form part of the military.

HillaryCare

Hillary Clinton has unveiled the third part of her plan to ensure that all Americans have affordable, quality health insurance. Building on her proposals to rein in costs and to insist on value and quality, her American Health Choices Plan will secure, simplify and ensure choice in health coverage for all Americans. This Plan covers every American – finally addressing the needs of the 47 million uninsured and the tens of millions of workers with coverage who fear they could be one pink slip away from losing their health coverage – with no overall increase in health spending or taxes. For those with health insurance, the plan builds on the current system to give businesses and their employees greater choice of health plans – including keeping the one they have – while lowering cost and improving quality.