Barney’s Blarney

The blame game is on. And we have a culprit identified: Ronald Reagan caused our financial crisis.

I know, this is old news from the Charlie Rose show: it’s the news according to Barney Frank. He’s shameless (but we all knew that).

Barney Frank wants to call September 15th “free enterprise day because that was the one day in which the Bush administration apparently stuck to its professed commitment to free enterprise….”

He says that a “true understanding” capitalism recognizes the need for “appropriate regulation.” He says that “by virtually totally abstaining from the market” Republicans in Congress and the Bush Administration caused the financial problem. He doesn’t understand “free enterprise” or the facts, although I’ll agree that we lacked “appropriate” regulation.

(And I was surprised during the Biden and Palin debate that Governor Palin didn’t answer the question about regulation. The problem, again, was the government, so why not defend deregulation? Why couldn’t she have made a stronger case for free enterprise? Doesn’t she like freedom?)

The Left wants us all to believe that the “free market” can “fail” and then we all suffer. Only the government can do what’s right and protect us. But what’s the failure of a buyer and seller agreeing to an exchange because they both think they will benefit? If the failure is fraud, we have laws for that…. Is the failure a lack of payment? or non-delivery of goods? We have laws, laws, and more laws for all aspects of commercial transactions.

Law enforcement, of course, is not premised on the coming of a Utopian age when mankind lives in perfect harmony. Instead, it’s premised on the idea of mortal man being fallible and the breaking of laws. It’s also requires proof in court.

So what’s the proof? who’s the culprit? Does Barney understand “appropriate”?

The dictionary doesn’t seem to help much in understanding what is “appropriate” legislation of “free enterprise.” The OED defines “appropriate” as “specially fitted or suitable, proper” and “enterprise” as “a bold, arduous, or momentous undertaking” and “free enterprise” as “the freedom of private business from state control, esp. as an economic doctrine.” This doesn’t help much because we only see here that “free enterprise” means “freedom of private business” and we don’t see what’s “fitted or suitable” regulation of “free enterprise.”

Now it might seem that “appropriate” doesn’t help much, but that’s not entirely the case. Consider who should decide what’s “appropriate”? If “appropriate” is whatever Barney decides, then we lack a rule of law. And without a rule of law, we lack liberty. (See Federalist No. 51 and Montesquieu’s definition of liberty in the Spirit of the Laws, Book 11, Chapter 3. )

But with the Community Reinvestment Act that encouraged loans to low and moderate income (LMI) applicants, guess who is deciding “appropriate” regulation? Under the “legislation,” banks were rated on their community development efforts. And community development is open to the “public” for “comment,” Appendix A (at end of CFR 228). So bank ratings of their compliance with the law and approval of mergers, etc. were subject to the comments of “community organizers” like ACORN and NACA. (ACORN says this comment period is “crucial.” And see ACORN’s “comments” in opposition to modifying CRA.)

So banks aren’t under the “appropriate” regulation of the rule of law as applied in court with independent judges. As explained here in 2000, they are subject to a form of extortion. Banks either make community “investments” or their CRA rating is lowered because of adverse “comments” by groups like ACORN and NACA.

There’s nothing “appropriate” or “democratic” or “community” about regulation by special interest “comments” designed to extort money from people without the protection of an independent court.

The comments that should count are the ones we make to our congressmen.

Free enterprise means that “government” isn’t the only entity for deciding what’s “appropriate.” What’s “appropriate” is not the mere will of Barney, or merely a matter of power. A sound loan is a sound loan because of the particular facts of the case, not because some ideology says making LMI loans and “community development” is a good thing to do. Barney’s ideology may say that, but Barney’s voice is not the voice of God, it’s just blarney.

The problem, again, is that what’s “appropriate” is not relative. The freedom of “free enterprise” is not relative but is grounded in morality. Free enterprise is merely an aspect of political liberty and as Montesquieu said, “political liberty does not consist in an unlimited freedom [to act as we please]. In governments, that is, in societies directed by laws, liberty can consist only in the power of doing what we ought to will, and in not being constrained to do what we ought not to will.”

Public Prayer

So now Virginia Chaplains are not to pray publicly in the name of Jesus, and six have resigned.

What’s wrong with the view of Sam Adams? From the journals of Congress it is recorded:

That Samuel Adams asserted he was no bigot, and could hear a prayer from any gentleman of piety and virtue, who was at the same time a friend to his country; and nominated Duché.

Has prayer in the name of Jesus made Christians unpatriotic? Do we now have bigots objecting to prayers? Does anyone still speak of “piety”?

I ask you, what’s wrong with what Sam Adams said?

Obama intimidation and NRA

Heh. I never thought I’d say this: “Good luck Obama.” The NRA isn’t going to be bullied.

Of course, it’s really not Obama vs. the NRA. Obama is simply trying to do damage limitation by using legal action against those who do business with the NRA.

Obama’s legal team has sent intimidating letters to tv stations and cable operators warning them of possible legal action for running NRA ads. The letter cites Factcheck, but see the factcheck of the Factchecker….. why trust gun idiots to judge the truth about guns?

Good grief Obama. What ever happened to “change” in campaigning? Intimidating critics in Missouri? Or is this all part of “community organizing.”

I can do without this “organizing”; let me judge the NRA ad like any other ad. (At least the NRA has been around for awhile, unlike the “pro-hunter” front AHSA group.)

Godspeed to us all who have to wade through the ads and campaign literature of honest as well as shifty politicians.

Humpty Dumpty and “taking responsibility”

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall;
All the King’s horses, and all the King’s men
Cannot put Humpty Dumpty together again.

Did you know Humpty Dumpty was a Royalist cannon that couldn’t be put back into action?

So who can put the economy back together? Is this going to be like putting Iraq back together?

Awhile back I caught a snippet of an O’Reilly interview with Obama about Iraq and his criticism of Bush’s policy. He thinks “the Iraqis still haven’t taken responsibility.” So I’ve paused to think about getting someone else to “take responsibility.”

Obama supports an Iraqi pullout to get the Iraqis to “take responsibility.” But getting someone to “take responsibility” is also a tv show. (Yes, Jen’s influence is here.) But that technique is called an “intervention.” I think it’s also called “tough love.”

In his NYT piece Senator Obama says:

Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

Hmmmm, turning “Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government” that–as the premise of this argument–is lacking a “comprehensive political accommodation.” That sounds like the sovereign government isn’t entirely sovereign. And maybe that’s like an addict, an independent adult person who is not entirely “sovereign.” So, sure, quit supporting the “addict” and force him to “take responsibility.”

But note, the interventionists don’t kick the addict to the street when he wants to reform. I think they get checked into rehab. They need a little “protection” until able to guard themselves from their old “friends.”

And what about this “financial crisis.” Who’s going to “take responsibility”? Who is going to do the “intervention”?

Again, there has to be a judgment about what is healthy and what isn’t, what is just and what is unjust. The healthy needs support and the unhealthy needs to be curbed. And I suppose the “intervention” may take some time.

A “bailout,” however, doesn’t sound like an “intervention”; it sounds like “enabling.”

I’m skeptical about the proposed “cure.” And I’m skeptical about “bipartisanship” as the solution. I think too much “bipartisanship” contributed to the problem. I think President Bush and the Democrats want “bipartisanship” so they can be “enabled” and not make the real changes necessary.

Note that President Bush mentioned “working with Congress,” “a spirit of cooperation,” and being “bipartisan” but barely mentioned Congress as part of the problem.

Note President’s Bush’s idea of the problem. First he mentioned that America is a great investment. He mentioned low interest rates as part of the problem.

But investment and low interest rates are not a problem. Were the “investment” a loan and were we not paying, then that would be a problem. Investment and low interest is not a problem but a great benefit that typically comes from a good credit rating.

Second, President Bush gives a reason that sounds more substantive. High risk loans and securities created by Freddie and Fannie were bad deals, but they found buyers and sold the securities around the world because they appeared to be backed by our government. That is, we’ve borrowed money from foreign countries to finance how we live and we don’t dare tell them to hold the securities and take the risk.

And with defaults on bad loans, housing prices quit rising and that led to more defaults. And who wants to pay more for a house than it’s worth?

But there’s the clue. People run away from their debt to save themselves.

And guess what? Even with backing these risky securities created by Fannie and Freddie, we still won’t be paying what we owe. We’ll go back to “tax and tax, spend and spend.” We have NO plan to pay what we owe. President Bush mentioned no plan to stop the “excesses” of Congress spending money without a plan to pay what is owed.

Bush said this problem “developed over a long period of time.” But he didn’t suggest it went back to FDR, to “tax and tax, spend and spend,” like Reagan understood.

From the beginning of Social Security recipients received more than they ever paid. And we continue to support politicians who promise to give us money we don’t have to pay back….

From the nation’s beginning, however, we’ve had real “interventions.” Alexander Hamilton did the first one. And we had lower interest rates that were not a “problem.” Reagan intervened and reduced the misery index and strengthened the dollar. A real “intervention” can be done, but I didn’t hear it coming from President Bush. And I wish Senator McCain would address it more….

Oversight

Oversight seems to be a big concern of some in Congress these days.

I guess there was an oversight. $700 billion. Some “oversight.”

So, where have these congressmen been? Aren’t they the “overseers”?

And do these congressmen not understand who oversees the Secretary of the Treasury? I thought that was the President.

I know, trusting the President scares some people. And trusting the President seems especially to scare congressmen. But I don’t think trusting the President should scare us anymore than trusting congressmen.

And I don’t trust their oversight boards either. The Freddie and Fannie “boards” didn’t help. And today my bro sent along an article about the Railroad Board. They never saw a disability claim they couldn’t approve. (Bro then related treating a “disabled” person. He was disabled and couldn’t work because he had an anger management problem.)

Riddle me this: Who oversees the overseers?

Well, when it comes to trust, I’ll repeat a comment on an earlier post. We have to oversee ourselves. We need to learn not to trust people who want to give us money—especially when it’s not their money. It really isn’t any different than Lincoln’s idea of liberty and democracy: As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master.

Voting, Losers, and the Electoral College

Like it or hate, the electoral college isn’t the failure some might make it out to be.  The electoral college is flexible and does the job.

First, it has nothing to do with “wasted votes” like some think….

Any election has “winners” and “losers.” That’s what an “election” is–it’s a choice. And people choose what they think is “best.” So elections produce “winners” and “losers.” But of course elections can serve different purposes. An “election” might mean that more than just a politician is the “loser.” A “Hutu” winner might mean a lot “Tutsis” lose everything.

So what’s the point of our elections? What’s the point of government? Is government about people getting what they want? Are people losers who have wasted their vote if they don’t get what they want?

I don’t doubt that if we want what’s good and right and we don’t win, that we very much can be “losers.” But constitutional government is supposed to mean that we don’t have “real” losers whose votes are worthless. Constitutional government means people don’t lose their lives, or their property, to the “winners.” And regular elections are part of the way we ensure we don’t have “real losers” and “winners” like Hitlers or Hutus.

Constitutional elections are not one-shot deals. Regular elections means there’s a dependence of government policy on public opinion. Regular elections mean we have a history to review, and a future to anticipate.

Great issues are not decided over night. Abortion has not been decided with one or two elections, or with one or two Supreme Court decisions. Neither has gun control, affirmative action, capital punishment, etc.

Responsible and intelligent people, and ambitious ones, look at the past, and think ahead. That’s good for constitutional government. And healthy elections, with wide margins or narrow margins, send signals. They signal support or opposition for policies. They signal growing or decreasing support for policies, for coalitions. Politicians understand these signals. Politicians may try to work around them with slick ads, but they must deal with them as the public debates abortion, gun control, capital punishment….

So, what about the electoral college? Is there something wrong with it? Does it sever a dependence on the people? Does it produce a decision? Is it likely to produce a good choice? Is it undemocratic?

If democracy only means a majority exercises power, then we can say the electoral college is undemocratic. That, however, doesn’t say much. The electoral college wasn’t designed for mob “rule.”

Remember Florida in 2000? Remember the “protests” as officials examined chads? So, suppose we had a close national election without the electoral college….. Oh yeah, suppose we magnify a couple of Florida counties and have every county like that in the country. Good grief. If we want constitutional government, we want orderly, rational, procedures. Could a popular majority election be conducted? Oh, I suppose, but why increase the likelihood of a spectacle?

And if we have a popular majority rule for choosing the president, we would have to address some things. There’s always third parties and frequently past winners have lacked a “majority” of the popular vote. So if we stick with a majority rule, and not just plurality rule, then we have more complications and we would have to have rules about runoff elections….

But the electoral college avoids that trouble, and it’s flexible. We don’t have to have “wasted” votes–you know, those votes for a candidate who could lose a state by a percent or two but get no electoral votes. Citizens of the states choose how to assign the electoral votes. A state doesn’t have to be winner-take-all. The people can divide up their electoral votes proportionately and make the electoral college vote look more like the popular vote–if the people wanted that.

The Constitution–and the electoral college–can stand the criticism of the left and their complaints about the abstract “capitalist system” all they want. The criticism doesn’t have substance when examined closely. Tearing down the Constitution in favor of an “international” order won’t produce a more just world.

So have at it Denis….. and whoever else would like to chime in.

9/11

Remember 9/11 when you vote….

(Hey, I know 9/11 was a week ago, but if I post before the election, it’s timely enough, and this is a rather broad reflection on the serious topic of defense. )

My “serious” interest in politics antedates 9/11 by about two decades, but my introduction was related to “9/11″ issues of peace and safety.

My “serious” introduction to politics was with a couple of books in a class taught by a professor who became a mentor. The first book, The Concept of the Political, was used as a brief introduction that went way over my head, and which I didn’t study seriously until later. The book, first published in a preliminary form as an essay in 1927, was written by a scholar who eventually supported the Nazis, Carl Schmitt. The edition we used in class also contained an analysis of Schmitt’s essay by a Jewish scholar, Leo Strauss, who later fled the Nazis. At the heart of Schmitt’s work, Strauss saw the basic question, is government necessary? The critique reportedly was well-received by Schmitt.

If the answer to the question, is government necessary? is in the affirmative, then it seems an explanation is required. Why can’t we live without the overpowering force of government? One might say government is necessary for defense, because we have dangerous enemies. And this is how Strauss describes Schmitt’s “first word against liberalism.”

Schmitt’s work considers the nature of politics and focuses on the distinction between friend and enemy. Politics is not just about philosophic abstractions, but concrete oppositions that result in the identification of the enemy. Schmitt wanted to understand the “state” by understanding the nature of the political. He thought the common definitions and usages of “state” were inadequate. His thesis is that “the concept of the state presupposes the concept of the political.” So he aimed to understand “the political.”

9/11 illustrates that we live in a dangerous world. We are opposed by enemies. As Schmitt writes in his essay:

It is irrelevant here whether one rejects, accepts or perhaps finds it an atavistic remnant of barbaric times that nations continue to group themselves according to friend and enemy, or hopes that the antithesis will one day vanish. . . . The concern here is neither abstractions nor with normative ideals, bit with inherent reality and the real possibility of such a distinction. . . . But, rationally speaking, it cannot be denied that nations continue to group themselves according to the friend and enemy antithesis, that the distinction still remains actual today, and that this is an ever present possibility for every people existing in the political sphere.

Then, using distinctions in Greek, he distinguishes between personal enemies and public enemies as he considers the “often quoted ‘Love your enemies’ (Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27).” He then writes:

Never in the thousand year struggle between Christians and Moslems did it occur to a Christian to surrender rather than defend Europe out of love toward the Saracens or Turks. . . . The Bible quotation touches the political antithesis even less than it intends to dissolve, for example, the antithesis of the good and evil. . . .

Strauss understands Schmitt’s polemic against pacifist humanitarianism to be directed against liberalism, against its lack of seriousness, or its attempt to make politics into something that’s merely entertaining.  Without serious disagreement, there is no conflict.  Without conflict there is no war.  Without war, we have peace.  And peace is the unquestioned goal of pacifist humanitarianism.

Schmitt understood there was a threat from modern liberalism.  He argued that a nation, not even a superpower, can “eliminate the distinction of friend and enemy.”  He concludes his line of thought about liberalism’s goal by writing:

It would be ludicrous to believe that a defenseless people has nothing but friends, and it would be a deranged calculation to suppose that the enemy could perhaps be touched by the absence of resistance. . . . If a people no longer possesses the energy or the will to maintain itself in the sphere of politics, the latter will not thereby vanish from the world.  Only a weak people will disappear.

While Strauss credited this “first word,”  he also critiqued Schmitt’s “seriousness,” his affirmation of the political, as merely a preliminary critique of liberalism. Strauss says that the affirmation of the political, the willingness to be serious and respect “all decisions leading up to the real possibility of war” is no different in kind than liberalism’s respect of all who “acknowledge the sanctity of peace.” Strauss says this affirmation of the political, this willingness to be serious and face conflict, has no name, at least not in the way that pacifist humanitarianism has the name of liberalism. But both liberalism and this “serious” approach to politics are mere affirmations, and are lacking a sound basis. The one affirms the goodness of avoiding conflict, while the other affirms the goodness of confronting the conflict, but neither has a foundation.

Strauss doesn’t read Schmitt’s affirmation of the political, of respect for a decision that may lead to war, to be Schmitt’s “last word” against liberalism. Strauss points toward Schmitt’s reference to “unpolluted knowledge” that “is never, except accidentally, polemical.” This knowledge is not to be gained from “political existence,” from the fact of political divisions in the world, but only by returning to “undefiled, not corrupt nature.”

This knowledge of nature stands in contrast to understanding that “an ever present possibility” of war “is the leading presupposition which determines in a characteristic way human action and thinking and thereby creates a specifically political behavior.” That is, a presupposition is not knowledge; it is only the “first word” in this argument.

Beyond the tentative character of the presupposition stands the question of whether existing states actually demonstrates that the “ever present possibility” of war “determines in a characteristic way human action and thinking and thereby creates a specifically political behavior.”

Government may be necessary, but not just because our enemies are dangerous, because man is dangerous. Government and politics may necessarily be the characteristic way of human action and thinking, without war being the underlying cause.

Consider again this election. Yes, we’re in a war. Does that determine how we think and act? Should war determine our actions?

Consider an issue that is not part of the war on terror,  but is part of a debate that reveals something of how we see ourselves and how we think and act.

Obama is said to support the barbaric action of denying care to babies that survive abortions. We tend not to think of abortion in terms of war (although Schmitt’s “first word” says that were we to think clearly, we would). Schmitt would say that the question does divide people and potentially could divide us into warring sides. But does that possibility of war determine how we think about abortion?

Does the possibility of war determine how we understand ourselves as humans?

I’m back to asking, as Schmitt did, what is man? Reagan said he believed that man is good.  While I don’t read Reagan’s words to mean that man is good enough for heaven, I do think that the innocent are good enough for protection and that we should not be prevented from doing what’s right–and we should be prepared to do what’s right.

Our elections are serious, but not just because we face dangerous enemies.  Rather, elections are serious because we face questions that challenge us to answer, who are we? Are we made in the image of God? Are we prepared to do justice? to defend ourselves and the innocent from the wicked?

The Rich

Who are the Rich?

I think a couple of threads are lurking here. First, one question lurking behind the question is, who should pay the taxes? Second, who is the “them” to our “us”?

Were we to face the question directly, I suspect those questions might be clarified. So, who are the “rich”?

Have you seen that email(s) talking about how rich Americans are? You know, haven’t you heard how many people throughout the world could live on the loose change in your pocket? And shouldn’t you be grateful to be an American? I think it’s true that Americans are quite prosperous.

But there’s even another sense in which some who don’t make $5million per year, or even $150,000 per year are rich.

My old pastor used to speak of “soul prosperity.” And that’s the title of a book by William Benn published in 1683 with an introduction by John Owen. (It’s also the title of another book by an antebellum Southern preacher Charles D Mallary published by my old pastor.)

The text for “soul prosperity” is III John 2. It’s worth contemplating. How does your soul prosper? Do you have “soul prosperity”? Are you indeed “rich”?

So it seems to me that the question about identifying the “rich” is distinguishable from the question about the best way to raise revenue. And the “best way” is “best” for the nation. And that addresses the second lurking question. So I think we can do away with class language and implications if we’ll get our priorities right. If we really do trust in God.

Aristotle thought a big middle class was best for mitigating the conflict between the “rich” and the “poor.” We’ve got that middle class, but I think we have it because our founders understood “soul prosperity” and doing justice. That makes the difference in politics.

Have a prosperous day.

Trust II

I think my previous questions may not be the right ones, especially because Rick Warren at Saddleback had asked about the “rich.” So following his lead, I’ve modified the trust questions. Here they are:

Again, thank you!

Trust

In commenting on Obama’s mention of Courage, a question of trust came up. I’ve put the question in a poll, and added a variation for a second question.

So here are the questions:

Thank you for participating.