Showing posts with label hope. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hope. Show all posts

Saturday, October 10, 2026

The Infinitely Renewable Resource

     Unless you resolve on a subsistence existence – find your own food, make your own clothes, et cetera — you must sell something to others. That, of course, requires you to make or find something to sell that others will pay you for. And so begins the division of labor economy. That encourages each of us, by the efficiencies available from specialization, to adopt a particular occupation and get good at it.

     Some decide to become pure salesmen: i.e., to produce nothing by their own labors, but to specialize in selling goods and services from some other source. In the usual case, that other source is other people or organizations. But an unusual case is on my mind this morning. It unites salesmen who would otherwise appear to be unrelated.

     Those salesmen sell hope.

* * *

     Hope is a peculiar good. The hope salesman doesn’t mine, harvest, or manufacture hope; he evokes it from within his customer. He does this by offering some less abstract good or service that the customer hopes will bring him nearer to some cherished goal. Sometimes that good or service is objectively real, even tangible, but evoking and strengthening the customer’s hope is the point of the matter.

     People hope for many things: love; sex; companionship; money; acceptance into specific groups; recognition of their excellences; propagation of their ideas. That list could be extended, but the point has been made. If a salesman can get you to believe that your specific hopes will draw nearer to achievement by purchasing what he’s selling, he’s got a hook in you.

     An honest salesman will hang in there with you for a long spell. He’ll try to show you how to use his nominal product to get closer to what you hope for. He’ll watch how you do it, and comment constructively on any missteps he recognizes. And should there come a point when it’s plain that you aren’t likely to get what you hope for in the foreseeable future, he’ll mourn with you.

     However, he’s unlikely to offer you a refund. Word of that could get around. The hope salesman can’t afford that.

     Of course, there are dishonest hope salesmen as well. We call them con men, charlatans, gamesters, snake-oil salesmen, or something even less appealing. They know perfectly well that what they’re selling will do nothing positive for you. It might even make you ill.

     Persons in certain fields are heavily beset by such salesmen.

* * *

     Since the customer is the true source of hope, it will be in plentiful supply for as long as there are people who want something. Paradoxically, that “oversupply” appears to have no depressing effect on hope’s price. Economic wisdom fails to apply to hope.

     Roger Zelazny once wrote a short story, “But Not The Herald,” around the theme that the Hope that lay at the bottom of Pandora’s box was the true scourge of Mankind. Now and then I find myself thinking he just might have been right about that.

     Anyway, if you’ve been wondering why this topic today, it’s because of a collection I’ve been amassing. Among my various categories of incoming email is a folder titled “The Promoter Scam.” Those emails came from persons who claim expertise at promoting books: an expertise they generously offered to put at my service. This morning, the number of entries in it passed 1000.

     “The Promoter Scam” has about 100 subfolders. Each is dedicated to the emails of a particularly persistent promoter: one who has importuned me three or more times. Persistence is sometimes an asset, though it hasn’t served the persons whose emails fill those subfolders.

     Yes, Gentle Reader: one of those promoters did “get me.” I may be a Certified Galactic Intellect, but I’m as susceptible to hope as anyone. It was a costly lesson, but it served to inoculate this foolish old man against foolish hopes.

     If you’re an indie writer, please consider this your warning: those promoters are trying to sell you your own hope. If you’re a friend or relative of an indie writer, you might want to pass this essay along to him. If you do so before he bites some promoter’s hook, you could save him money and disappointment. As for me, I write as a public service. There’s no money in it, anyway.

Saturday, May 9, 2020

People Of Hope

     Yes, your Curmudgeon is in one of those moods again. You don’t have to read this. If you do anyway, you’ve been warned. I make no excuses for the sentiments I express here.


     If you’re still young – say, under 35 – learning about what will come upon you as the years accumulate will dismay you. A lot of this stuff is seldom discussed where “the young’uns” would hear it. I once wondered why. No longer.

     I’ll cut right to the chase: Unless you’re one of a very fortunate very few, you’re going to get tired. Worse, you’re going to stay tired. But it won’t be an entirely physical phenomenon. It will derive in equal measure from what you have seen, learned, and cannot forget.

     Most of life is about confronting and coping with the same problems, over and over. This is one of the central elements of what has been called the “tragic vision:” the great problems are eternal. We can’t solve them; we can only apply temporary measures that will allow us to go on a little further. It is so because of our natures as individual, temporal beings: creatures with independent existences and consciousnesses, who must cope with existence under the veil of time.

     You’ll do your best, but no one’s best is sufficient to “solve” the “problem” of temporal existence. This is one of the lessons the years confer on the receptive.


     Despite the connotations of the phrase, the “tragic vision” is not a sorrowful one. It’s simply realistic: it takes the world as it is rather than demanding some more favorable set of laws and conditions and insisting that they be so. Philip K. Dick understood this:

     “If you were me, and your wife were sick, desperately so, with no hope of recovery, would you leave her? Or would you stay with her, even if you had traveled ten years into the future and knew for an absolute certainty that the damage to her brain could never be reversed? And staying with her would mean—”
     “I can see what you mean, sir,” the cab broke in. “It would mean no other life for you beyond caring for her.”
     “That’s right,” Eric said.
     “I’d stay with her,” the cab decided.
     “Why?”
     “Because,” the cab said, “life is composed of reality configurations so constituted. To abandon her would be to say, I can’t endure reality as such. I have to have uniquely special easier conditions.”

     Sometimes we anticipate pain and sorrow. They may be avoidable, with the right planning and preparation. But sometimes we can see the course of our future well enough to know that they’re inescapable. What then? Give up, lie down on the tracks, and wait for the train?

     Of course not. We do our best with the time and resources we have. We cope. Coping is the quintessential human skill. It gets us from one instant to the next. Tragedy may lie in our future; indeed, in at least one sense, it’s inescapable for everyone. But tomorrow is not a reason to forsake today and what we can do with it. It never has been.

     This is another of the lessons the years confer on the receptive.


     Christians have been called “the people of hope.” There’s a depth to that phrase. What do we hope for? On what grounds? Is it sufficient to justify our faith? Should we conclude that we’ve been deceived about it all, what then?

     The essence of Christian hope lies in our belief that God is good. In contrast, pre-Christian, pagan religions often assumed malevolence from their gods. They equated divine power with sadism, for is the world not filled with hazards and horrors? Don’t we suffer terribly in this life, only to die a little while afterward? Given the conditions of life in the centuries before Christ, it becomes possible to understand how such beliefs could find adherents.

     But note this: those pagans did not kill themselves. Neither did they wait passively for their “fate,” however conceived, to overtake them. Their vision of Ultimate Reality, though dark, was not sufficient to get them to stop coping. They worked, produced, loved, mated, had children and raised them as best they could, and went on, day after day, coping, coping, coping…

     Our hope is conscious. The pagans’ hope was unexpressed. Yet the virtue involved is the same.

     The lesson here is obscure, but imperative.


     “Suppose it was even as you think,” he went on, even more gently. “Suppose that all you say was a fact, and that our Elders were but greedy tyrants, ourselves abandoned here by their selfish will and set to fulfill a false and prideful purpose. No.” Jamethon’s voice rose. “Let me attest as if it were only for myself. Suppose that you could give me proof that all our Elders lied, that our very Covenant was false. Suppose that you could prove to me”—his face lifted to mine and his voice drove at me—“that all was perversion and falsehood, and nowhere among the Chosen, not even in the house of my father, was there faith or hope! If you could prove to me that no miracle could save me, that no soul stood with me, and that opposed were all the legions of the universe, still I, I alone, Mr. Olyn, would go forward as I have been commanded, to the end of the universe, to the culmination of eternity. For without my faith I am but common earth. But with my faith, there is no power can stay me!”

     [Gordon R. Dickson, Soldier, Ask Not]

     That early novel of Dickson’s presents the reader with the “Splinter World” of Harmony, populated by “Friendlies:” extremely devout members of a harshly ascetic, quasi-Christian faith. Their world is poor, which appears to be consistent with their asceticism. Yet they need purchasing power that will allow them to trade with other worlds. To earn that inter-world purchasing power, they export their one and only merchandisable good: their men, as mercenary soldiers.

     Seems a bit contradictory for an ascetic faith, doesn’t it? Dickson makes it work, through the person of his character Jamethon Black, quoted above. For Jamethon knows, as few persons of our world seem to know, that faith is essential to human existence. We cannot live decent lives without faith: in particular, the faith that the universe makes sense and that through study, thought, and effort one’s difficulties can be overcome at least for the moment.

     Everything we believe but cannot prove or disprove is an article of faith. Our confidence in our “knowledge” is an expression of an underlying faith: that the universe is governed by laws we can learn and exploit. Without that faith, men would not have begun to study the phenomena around them for the patterns that indicate the existence of such laws.

     Our seldom-expressed faith in the lawfulness of reality is what makes it possible for us to go on: to age in hope.


     Faith and hope are two of the three virtues called the eternal verities. And indeed, in the lives of men they are demonstrably eternal. Even the hardcore atheist has a faith; he simply doesn’t call it that. They who lack all faith and hope commit suicide, consciously or otherwise.

     But there is a third theological virtue yet to be addressed. In our modern argot it’s usually called “love.” While that word is not wholly inexact, it has connotations that obscure the value at issue: that of charity.

     “Charity” is not confined to the giving of one’s money, goods, and effort to others. The full meaning is that of the Latin word caritas: caring or concern, especially for the well-being of others.

     Charity, like hope, would not be possible without faith. In this case, the faith in question is the faith that others’ condition, whether material, moral, or spiritual, can be conserved and improved. We hope for it because we have faith that it’s possible. We act on it because we know, as has been said many times in other contexts, that “hope is not a strategy.” And note: only very rarely does the charitable man falter in his charity just because in some instance it has failed to do as he hoped.

     Yet in our era, charitable works seem to fail more often than they succeed. Most recipients of material charity act as if they’re owed. (Not to put too sharp an edge on it, they’re not.) Many recipients of moral or spiritual charity act insulted: “How dare you counsel me?” Seldom is there an enduring improvement in the recipient. And to add insult to injury there are always some who preach a gospel of despair: that “things have always been this way and always will be.” You’re licked before you start, so why start?

     Why indeed?


     Longtime readers already know how circuitous I can be. Today is one of those days. At any rate, we return at last to the theme of the opening segment.

     Coping – doing your best with the circumstances reality presents you – is what tires you out. Nor does it matter whether you get the results you hoped for from your coping technique. Your non-physical tiredness, which has been called being “world-weary,” arises from failure: yours, those around you, and others far away for whom you had harbored some hope.

     Most of what men attempt eventuates in failure. Yet failure seldom extinguishes hope. Our faith that there is still a possibility of improvement drives us onward. What does it matter how many times we’ve failed? Here is a fresh opportunity; why not seize it?

     To spurn such opportunities is the admission that one’s faith in an orderly universe whose difficulties can be mastered has lapsed. Yes, some do lose that faith, even permanently. But we don’t often hear of them afterward, except in obituary columns.

     With age comes an accumulation of failures: one’s own, those of others in one’s circle, and those of others more distant. We’ve seen a lot of failures: far more numerous than successes. The cumulative impact makes us world-weary…which is really just another way of saying experienced.

     But in our several, ever more enfeebled ways, we go on. We keep hoping, and therefore trying. Because to surrender would be to betray our faith.

     You see, it’s not just Christians who are people of hope. It’s every man who refuses to surrender to his weariness, insists that he has not been defeated, and continues to do his best to cope, driven by the conviction, which in the nature of such things is neither provable nor disprovable and is therefore an article of faith, that there is still a chance that things can be better.

     Be well.

Monday, August 8, 2016

Weariness

     There are days it all seems to be just “too much.” And a number of my DextroSpheric colleagues appear to be succumbing to it.

     Things are bad. Really bad. And a lot of good people have decided to laager up and hope to ride out the worst of the storm:

     I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's worth. Banks are going bust. Shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter. Punks are running wild in the street and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it. We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat, and we sit watching our TVs while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that's the way it's supposed to be.

     We know things are bad — worse than bad. They're crazy. It's like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don't go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller, and all we say is: 'Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone.'

     [From Paddy Chayevsky’s screenplay for Network]

     If they hadn’t gotten that bad, there would have never been a Tea Party movement. But there was a Tea Party movement. Where is it today? Have you seen it lately? If not, consider the possibility that those good people, the sort that left their rallies cleaner than they found them, might have become weary and given up, too.

     A friend who owns a large spread on a mountain in the country, well removed from population centers and (from what he’s told me) relatively easy to defend, has suggested with increasing urgency that I purchase the vacant property adjoining his and move there post haste. He’s not the first to make such a suggestion; I’ve been encouraged to adopt such a course several times. (No, not by my current neighbors, thank you.) Given my age and declining health, it’s not something I could do without certain concerns...but I’m considering it nevertheless.

     I’m weary too.


     We’ve been supplied with ample evidence that our political class is determined to maintain its grip on these United States despite any and all resistance. Their assets include the powers of the federal government, its effective control over the state governments, and the collusion of the major media. The intensifying weariness of the private sector – Recovery? What recovery? We’re broke -- is nudging us toward a state of affairs other peoples have endured for centuries:

     “Oh hell, are you going to let that dame talk you into letting the richest country on earth slip through your fingers?” said Cuffy Meigs., leaping to his feet. “It’s a fine time to give up a whole continent—and in exchange for what? For a dinky little state that’s milked dry, anyway! I say ditch Minnesota, but hold onto your transcontinental dragnet. With trouble and riots everywhere, you won’t be able to keep people in line unless you have transportation—troop transportation—unless you hold your soldiers within a few days’ journey of any point on the continent. This is no time to retrench. Don’t get yellow, listening to all that talk. You’ve got the country in your pocket. Just keep it there.”
     “In the long run—“ Mouch started uncertainly,
     “In the long run, we’ll all be dead,” snapped Cuffy Meigs. He was pacing restlessly. “Retrenching, hell! There’s plenty of pickings left in California and Oregon and all those places. What I’ve been thinking is, we ought to think of expanding—the way things are, there’s nobody to stop us, it’s there for the taking—Mexico and Canada, maybe—it ought to be a cinch.”
     Then she saw the answer; she saw the secret premise behind their words. With all of their noisy devotion to the age of science, their hysterically technological jargon, their cyclotrons, their sound rays, these men were moved forward, not by the image of an industrial skyline, but by the vision of that form of existence the industrialists had swept away—the vision of a fat, unhygienic rajah of India, with vacant eyes staring in indolent stupor out of stagnant layers of flesh, with nothing to do but run precious gems through his fingers and, once in a while, stick a knife into the body of a starved, toil-dazed creature, as a claim to a few grains of the creature's rice, then claim it from hundreds of millions of such creatures and thus let the rice gather into gems.

     Say what you will about Ayn Rand’s views on religion; I don’t like them either. She wrote of what she saw developing, in the hope of warning the United States off a course guaranteed to result in disaster. It’s more than possible that she saw the future of this country, should we fail to discipline those who claim the privilege of ruling over us.

     Our problem is that Galt’s Gulch cannot be established on Earth.


     We’re in a bad way. No one dares to challenge Leviathan. The media are firmly on its side. There’s no salvation to be found in elections; the electoral system has been “re-engineered” to guarantee that the elite will “win” over all insurgencies. Thousands of tiny, isolated pockets of good men hunkering down, hoping that anonymity and silence will spare them the attentions of our political parasites, is no solution.

     Trump? Well, as a political kinda-sorta outsider, he could shake things up...if he were permitted to:

     RealTrueNews: "Is it fair to say that Silver is worried?"
     538 Source: "In a panic. Our business model is predicated on making liberals feel better about the election. Right now? It's a disaster."
     RTN: "So what are you doing?"
     538: "Well, we're changing the model for starters. There were a few hours when the server was showing the real projections and while traffic was pretty high, let me tell you, it was a melt-down politically."
     RTN: "What do you mean?"
     538: "Well, Nate's a liberal. No secret there. When he saw what was happening he flipped out. Had us look for bugs--something gone wrong--looking at the feeds. Of course nothing was wrong. Nothing had changed. Then he got on the phone with his people embedded with Q-Pac and Survey Monkey and PPP and all those guys--"
     RTN: "Wait--embedded?"
     538: "Huh? Oh, yeah--it's a big social club. The pollsters all work together. We have a Slack-room that's sharing all kinds of results and skews and all that. That's how we keep it all orderly."
     RTN: "Orderly?"
     538: "Sure--what? You think it's . . . random? Come on. Who do you think pays for the polls? People who want results. You're buying media. It's like ads or . . . I don't know. Like newspaper stories? You pay 30k for a poll of Florida, it says what you want."
     RTN: "But what about on election day?"
     538: "Oh--we drive it. You set the expectations ahead of time. It's called pre-loading. You'd be surprised how we can fine-tune things. Mass belief is powerful. The problem here is (a) not everyone plays nice. Fox is rogue. Rasumssen was . . . bad. They were doing real polling. Also, there's like a game of chicken. At the start of the cycle we do real polling so that everyone knows how they better buy in. This time . . . Trump just caught us by surprise. The impact was so big--it came on so fast--Hillary just collapsed."
     RTN: "What--what happens next?"
     538: "I don't know, man. There are a bunch of smaller groups out there doing real polls. I don't know if anyone can keep this under wraps. They had to talk Silver off the edge of the building yesterday. It was bad."
     RTN: "He was literally going to throw himself out a window?"
     538: "Yeah--he was--well, but we're on the second floor. He was just really pissed. I mean, he got a call from the White House telling him to fix it and shit."
     RTN: "Wow."
     538: "Wow is right."

     But let’s not allow ourselves to view “good news” too optimistically. “Confirmation bias,” don’t y’know. It could be “disinformation,” too. Can you really trust in the veracity of a statement emitted by someone ensconced within the political orbit? And let’s always remember that “It doesn’t matter who votes; it only matters who counts the votes”...and that process is firmly in the hands of the political elite.

     It’s enough to make you weary...maybe weary enough to give up.


     There’s always hope. (I’m a Catholic; we’re expected to maintain that.) But the forces arrayed against us—those who understand and love freedom—are very large, completely ruthless, and disinclined to “play fair.” They control the horizontal and the vertical. They will tell us only what they want us to hear – and they’ve mastered the two most effective techniques for deception:

  1. Tell “just enough” truth – then shut up.
  2. Tell the exact truth and maybe all of it...but tell it so unconvincingly that your audience concludes that you must be lying.

     (Thank you, Robert A. Heinlein.)

     Yesterday, I spoke of the unwisdom of ever trusting in a government or its minions. Individuals earn one another’s trust by their conduct. So also with governments...and dare anyone say that the federal government of these United States has done anything to earn our trust?

     The core of our malaise problem is that things are so far gone that few of us can imagine even the possibility of improvements. I’ve just written 1700 words about the instruments that have created your weariness. I know them well; I battle them, and the weariness they engender, daily.

     If it’s unwise to trust in “our” government, too daunting a task to overthrow it, and impossible (for the moment) to escape it geographically, we must trust one another.

     We must build up the molecules of safety, security, and social harmony: families and the communities they constitute.

     Do you trust your spouse? I hope so. But many married persons don’t. There are a host of reasons, these days. Don’t give him any of them.

     Children are inherently trusting until they realize that they’ve been deceived or betrayed. Accordingly, conserve your child’s trust in you: never lie to him, and never lead him to believe that he will (or might) get something he wants when there’s even a minuscule possibility that he won’t. The first phrase to be excised from your vocabulary is “We’ll see.” To you, that means “The possibility exists.” To him, it means “Yes, I’ll give it to you if you’ll just wait a moment.” Don’t bother to dispute the semantics; children are naturally inclined to hear what they want to hear. (Aren’t you?)

     What about your neighbors? Do you trust them? Would you be willing to leave your neighbor free access to your home while you’re on vacation in a distant place? Time was, that was normal; people left spare keys with neighbors as a matter of course. What about today? Are you willing to let your neighbors know that you’re in violation of some unjust law – say, a law that offers them a bounty for snitching on you? And when you think “my neighbors,” how far from your front door does the phrase reach?

     These are the areas where we can do useful work – work that promises a positive return.


     The above is something of a ramble. I write about what’s on my mind, and for quite a while what’s been uppermost on my mind is this pervasive sense of weariness. It can be beaten; there are no indefeasible enemies. But one must know the proper strategy and tactics.

     Weariness of the sort that impels one to “give up” is best combated with success: i.e., the undertaking of an effort toward a positive end that actually achieves that end. If we can’t control the course of events nationally, or at the state or county level, we have better possibilities close to home.

     I don’t claim to have all the answers. I’m a writer, not a Twenty-First Century Nostradamus. (Besides, he was wrong about a lot of things, too.) But I know what’s possible to men of good will who refuse to accept defeat.

     With that, I shall throw the floor open for comments, suggestions, criticism, and braying laughter.

Friday, November 7, 2014

T Plus Three: Hope Yielding Self-Deception

Three days is an important time interval in sociometry. Among other things, it’s the interval between the emergence of a significant ideon – i.e., a cluster of mutually interlocked assertions or presumptions with significant implications – and the maximization of the social reaction to that ideon. In other words, three days after the ideon “hits” is when its amplitude within the relevant social space will be the greatest.

Three days ago, the United States experienced a “wave” election, in which a significant fraction of the most conspicuous component of our ruling class was replaced, supposedly by its ideological opposite. If we treat this matter strictly, the three-day interval would elapse some time this evening: at the time at which it was incontrovertible that control of Capitol Hill had passed from Democrat to Republican majorities.

The social space relevant to the election would be politically engaged Americans: i.e., those who continue to regard electoral politics as an important determinant of important matters. That’s far from being all of us; it’s probably more like 20% to 30% of American adults. Still, that’s a significant fraction of the nation, which commands a great deal of wealth, social standing, and capacity to influence the behavior of others.

By this evening, the expectations of that fraction will be primed for whatever comes next. If the Republican Party’s power-brokers have any sense for the sociodynamics involved, tonight will be when its most prominent faces – Mitch McConnell and John Boehner – will announce relatively detailed intentions for the Congressional term to come.

Let’s imagine that such an announcement of a Republican agenda will be made. What are the next, most critical questions to address?

Pour yourself another cuppa, Gentle Reader. This is where the rubber really meets the road.


In Shadow Of A Sword, the capstone of my “Realm of Essences” trilogy, I had idealized Presidential contender Stephen Graham Sumner make the following campaign pitch:

    “If you elect me president, I will put an end to every federal activity not explicitly authorized by the Constitution of the United States. I will shut down as much of the federal government as that requires, consistent with my duties as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and chief enforcer of federal law.
    “This crowd is large enough that some of you probably work for the federal government. Nearly five million Americans do. Be sure you’re willing to take the risk that your job might not be really essential before you go into the booth and pull the lever next to my name.
    “If I can swing enough of Congress behind me, I will put an end to federal borrowing. I will put an end to the reign of unelected regulators. And whether Congress likes it or not, I will insist that the Tenth Amendment—the one that says that the powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the states or the people—be observed strictly and explicitly.
    “You should think about that. Some of you will need new ways to earn a living. Some of you will lose subsidies or programs that have helped you to pay your way through life. All I can promise you in return is that from that point forward, you will know what federal law demands of you, and you won’t be expected to read the United States Code to know it. But that’s where my promises to you end.
    “It will be your job to discipline your state and local governments. They’ve raped you in their turn, often by conning you with the same lies and empty promises you’ve heard from politicians at the federal level. But unless they violate a constitutional restriction on their powers, I can’t help you with that.”
    He pointed a finger into the mass of the crowd. “You must call them to account. You must hold them liable. And some of you must put down the tools of your trades, possibly trades you love and have practiced for many years, and go on campaign, as I have done, to replace them.” He paused, gathered all his forces, and leaned close over the microphone. “Are you sure that’s what you want?”

Shadow Of A Sword is, of course, fiction. No one on either side of the political divide has made a promise resembling Sumner’s since Grover Cleveland at least. Nor should we expect any representative of either major party to announce such an agenda any time soon. Still, let’s follow the train of thought of a single, reasonably intelligent person in the crowd listening to Sumner that day. What questions would be uppermost in his thoughts?

  1. Is the candidate sincere?
  2. Is his agenda feasible?

In reality, an American adult would greet a statement of intentions like Sumner’s with pronounced cynicism: the “yeah, sure, that’s what you say now” reaction of one who has “heard it all before.” Our politics has been rife with insincerity and duplicity for a century at least. Such a pattern makes a radical departure a chancy thing to expect, even though the longer a trend continues, the more suspect it becomes.

But let’s stipulate that our imagined listener deems the candidate sincere. What about the feasibility of his agenda; how likely is it that even a freshly elected, wildly popular President of the United States, installed in the Oval Office by a huge majority, could bring it off?

Large institutions are like large masses; they have large inertia. The federal government of the United States is the largest such institution in the world. Even were we to exclude consideration of the dynamics of power-seeking – i.e., that men pursue power specifically because that’s the thing they want most – it would still strain credulity to accept that the candidate could and would carry out his plan. It would take a will of steel and unprecedented political muscle to achieve so much without recourse to arms.

Ann Barnhardt states the case for this in her most recent offering.


We mustn’t expect McConnell and Boehner to propose anything nearly as dramatic as Sumner’s intended program, of course. They’re power-seekers too. In all likelihood, they hope to use their increased leverage to exploit federal power to benefit themselves and their favored constituencies, rather than to begin a return to Constitutionally limited government. Indeed, there are vanishingly few persons in politics from whom a pledge such as Sumner’s would be regarded as sincere.

”Put not your trust in princes,” saith the Psalmist. That should include elected princes.


Regardless of whether the GOP’s top men will announce a plan of attack on Obamunism this evening or in the near future, the results of the midterm elections have stimulated certain hopes and expectations:

The American people sent an unmistakable message to Washington: Voters expect Republicans in Congress to listen and fight for the conservative agenda they ran on.

As little as I like to burst anyone’s soap bubble, there’s a considerable degree of naivety in those twenty-five words:

  • The “message” is entirely in the mind of the speaker;
  • What voters “expect” is beyond anyone’s ability to know;
  • In the main, “Republicans in Congress” ran solely opposition to the Obama regime; they certainly didn’t articulate firm conservative principles or a firm conservative agenda.
  • Even if we omit consideration of the above, how plausible is it that a Congress that remains 96% as it was before the midterms will deviate significantly from its previous behavior?

We can warn the incoming Congress all we like; indeed, we can shout at it till the whole nation is blue in the face. Given the dynamics of power-seeking, what can we reasonably expect from it? Unfortunately, the most plausible outcome is all too clear:

Approximately nothing will change.

The Affordable Care Act will not be repealed.
Illegal aliens will spread their exclaves over America.
Tax rates and the deductions structure will change little, if at all.
There will be no significant changes in the regulatory environment;
The IRS will get away scot free with its suppression of conservative activism.
The enviro-Nazis at the EPA will continue to obstruct natural resource exploitation.
The Justice Department will continue to maneuver to suppress lawful commerce in firearms.
No one will be prosecuted for the felonies committed by federal agencies over the past six years.
The enveloping political environment of posturing and reciprocal denunciation will continue unaltered.

Believe anything else at your own emotional peril.