Showing posts with label conservatism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conservatism. Show all posts

Monday, February 16, 2026

Making It Clear

     Every now and then, someone will post a rendition of the following sort, somewhere on the Web – typically, these days, at X:

     Please read it in its entirety, Gentle Reader. It’s worth your time.

     The story isn’t a new one, of course. We’ve heard similar accounts before this. The commonalities among them are striking. But the differences among them are just as important. It’s worth noting them for general consideration.

     Matt Van Swol describes himself as “Former Nuclear Scientist for US Dept of Energy.” So we must suppose he has a few working brain cells. Despite that, it came as a surprise to him when those that he regarded as friends before he announced his support for President Trump turned against him as a person. Hadn’t he noticed the pattern? Or did he think it wouldn’t apply to him?

     Then there’s this part:

     There’s a specific kind of grief that comes from realizing people didn’t just disagree with you… ...they re-categorized you as "unsafe." Someone once told me that, in person. "We don't feel safe with you." Like you became a different species overnight.

     Now, in point of fact, Matt’s former, left-leaning “friends” don’t feel “unsafe” around him. They’re not worried that he might hurt them, steal from them, or kidnap their children. As an intelligent man who consciously changed his opinions, the threat he presents is to their assumption of righteousness. That’s the core of the Left’s appeal to its adherents: “Just adopt this political posture and you can preen yourself as being smarter and more moral than those Neanderthals in the Right!”

     This too is part of the pattern. It’s been on display throughout the Twenty-First Century… but one must see it to acknowledge it. And it speaks volumes… but one must hear it to comprehend it. Many people, including some highly intelligent ones, fail to do those things.

     This is not a major new revelation. Thomas Sowell covered it in detail in his masterpiece The Vision of the Anointed. Nearly every other significant aspect of the Left-Right divide flows from it. On June 28, it will be thirty years since the publication of that book, yet far too few people have read it.

     But I don’t mean to make heavy weather of that facet of things. Rather, allow me to note one more thing about Matt’s “transition:”

     We went to church for the first time ever, with our kids.

     Just twelve words. A simple declarative statement. But it says more than one might think upon first reading it.

     Conservatives tend to be practicing Christians. Religion of any sort mixes dubiously with politics, but the correlation between conservatism and Christianity among persons in the Right cannot be denied. Note that Matt and his family went to church “for the first time ever.” That’s a haymaker… but for the full impact one must ask “Why?”

     Allow me a snippet from an old Heinlein story, “The Man Who Sold the Moon:”

     "Ever read Carl Sandburg, George?"
     "I'm not much of a reader."
     "Try him some time. He tells a story about a man who started a rumor that they had struck oil in hell. Pretty soon everybody has left for hell, to get in on the boom. The man who started the rumor watches them all go, then scratches his head and says to himself that there just might be something in it, after all. So he left for hell, too."

     I have no doubt many of Matt’s family’s friends were practicing Christians. But he’d had no interest in such things… until he noted the correlation between conservative opinions, decency and courtesy in treating with others of divergent views, and Christian faith. He saw, and he wondered. Maybe he thought that there just might be something in it, after all.

     It’s happened before, hasn’t it?

     Spread Matt’s tale around, Gentle Reader. It has more punch than many thousands of my own words.

Friday, June 12, 2020

Take A Second Look At Conservative Organizations

     "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." – Eric Hoffer

     The critical importance of “supporting conservative organizations” is touted widely and vociferously...by conservative organizations. Yet, as Ned Ryun points out in this piercing piece, “conservative organizations” such as the Heritage Foundation have a stunning record for consuming millions in donations while producing nothing but froth and gas:

     Today some people, myself included, are rightly asking: if Heritage can’t support the most basic tenets of America’s founding and affirm its rise to exceptionalism, what is the point of Heritage at all? They claim to be conservatives, but what have they conserved? Where are their victories?

     Their own list of alleged accomplishments is amusing, to say the least. Heritage claims credit for the list of President Donald Trump’s judges—which is funny, as it is common knowledge among conservatives that the list was compiled, analyzed, and vetted by the Federalist Society at the direction of Leonard Leo and former White House Counsel Don McGahn. Heritage takes credit for being active in some policy issues during the Trump Administration, too. But for an institution that once prided itself on being the “think tank” of the Reagan Revolution, that’s not saying much.

     Donald Trump did not come our way out of any “conservative organization.” Indeed, most of them fought him savagely – and not on the basis of his positions, but because of his “style.” Concerning what Heritage has actually been doing with the donations of its supporters, Ryun cuts like a new scalpel:

     What is more interesting—and telling—is what Heritage considers one of its greatest achievements in the past 20 years. Going back to 2003 this former bastion for the limited size of government brags about doubling in size, building an eight-story office edifice with a 230-person seat auditorium. More troubling than expanding its own footprint is its efforts to vastly expand the size and reach of the federal government by promoting and pushing ideas that are antithetical to conservative principles.

     Look only at the famous—or infamous, depending on who you talk to—example of Heritage being one of the primary advocates of Romneycare, the godfather of Obamacare. Ed Feulner, former president of Heritage, vociferously denies it, but facts are pernicious things.

     Not terribly conservative, eh what?


     One of the most insidious diseases of the institutional mindset is the tendency to conflate inputs with outputs – i.e., when asked “what is being accomplished?” (especially if a truthful answer is “approximately nothing”) to redirect attention to what’s being spent. This sprouts directly from the institutional dynamic, the highest priority of which is to survive and to grow regardless of whether the institution’s nominal purpose is still being served. (Cf. the Eric Hoffer quote at the beginning of this screed.) Governments do it, too, which is one of the Right’s greatest frustrations with our federal government.

     It’s worse, of course, when a “conservative organization” starts to turn traitor, and lobbies for “compromise” with the Left on matters of principle. Heritage and others have been found advocating soft versions of Leftist nostrums. Often their policy wonks will back a weakened Leftist proposal – the sort of thing that’s guaranteed to deteriorate over time into outright socialism or communism, such as RomneyCare – with the plea that “we have to do something” and “it could be worse:” hardly a conservative’s favorite argument.

     (“Smile,” the man said. “Things could be worse.” So I smiled...and they got worse.)

     There’s no need to thrash this into pulp. Before you pull out your checkbook, or fish out your credit card, or click the PayPal donation button, or whatever donating to XYZ Society involves, try to determine what that organization has actually achieved. Insist on real, individual-rights-respecting achievements in public policy, not fancy new office buildings or “white papers” that have had no demonstrable effect on American governance. Be critical of claims that XYZ is responsible for some Right-leaning policy, if those claims are presented without hard evidence. Be furious about XYZ’s participation in advocating or enacting policies that undermine individual freedom or the Constitutional limits on government.

     It’s your money. Spend it wisely.

     “Now that you know the truth about your world, stop supporting your own destroyers. The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it. Withdraw your sanction. Withdraw your support. Do not try to live on your enemies’ terms or to win at a game where they’re setting the rules.” – Ayn Rand

Friday, May 1, 2020

Sound Thinking On An Emotional Subject From An Unexpected Quarter

     I’m not knowledgeable about porn and porn stars. Occasionally, a name will become famous enough – Jenna Jameson is one such – that even a dried-up old Catholic will have heard it. But until this morning I wasn’t at all acquainted with Brandi Love:

     Good-lookin’ woman, eh? And at age 48, at that. As it develops, she’s got more than just an attractive face and figure. Miss Love has penned an article of considerable import that appears this morning at The Federalist. But before we address her article, have a gander at what triggered it: this piece by a supposed U.K. conservative:

     Every now and then, the modern world produces a trend so ghastly you can’t help but sit back and think, would a global Islamic Caliphate really be that bad?

     One such fad is the sudden growth of OnlyFans, a monthly paid subscription content service, which has turned hefty chunks of the young female population into amateur pornographers.

     The premise is simple: start an account, set the price, and then drip-feed content to monthly-paying subscribers.

     The site doesn’t exclusively host sex workers; home-baking mothers and some fitness and yoga businesses also use the platform to market their services. But its model is similar to that of once-popular social media site Tumblr; once the porn goes, it’s finished.

     The platform has around 17.5 million global users and over 70,000 content creators, who have received over $150 million since its launch. The Huffington Post reported that it has enjoyed a 75 percent spike in new users during the COVID-19 shutdown.

     Lots of its users are making a lot of money. Some have so many online admirers that they are able to turn their business into real estate.

     You’re not imagining the tone of envy and resentment in the above. The article goes on in an even more bluenosed fashion. Feel free to read it all, if you have the stomach for that much whining.

     But what, I ask you, is author Charlie Peters’ prescription? Censorship? Prohibition and prosecution? Or just that we deplore something for which he has no taste? He never musters enough testosterone to tell us explicitly what he favors.

     Herewith, Miss Love’s reply:

     How does someone call himself a conservative and then dismiss the First Amendment? Regardless of how people feel about adult entertainment, it is clear from U.S. Supreme Court decisions that the modern court believes the Constitution protects expressive conduct, and does not equate nudity and or consensual sex with obscenity.

     The First Amendment protects more than political speech. In a powerful 1948 passage supporting freedom of speech, the court wrote in Winters v. New York that it did not accept the argument that “the constitutional protection for a free press applies only to the exposition of ideas.”

     In an oft-cited passage, the majority declared: “The line between the informing and the entertaining is too elusive for the protection of that basic right. Everyone is familiar with instances of propaganda through fiction. What is one man’s amusement, teaches another’s doctrine. Though we can see nothing of any possible value to society in these magazines, they are as much entitled to the protection of free speech as the best of literature.”

     The First Amendment protects speech on a wide variety of nonpolitical topics. These include but are not limited to the arts, entertainment, and movies (see Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 1952). The First Amendment serves as the blueprint for personal liberty. To restrict freedom of speech only to political matters would severely narrow our freedoms.

     Indeed. It’s a solid piece from first to last; please read it all. But Miss Love’s response is about the rights involved. The subject is wider than that.


     Many faiths, including my own, condemn porn as if it were equivalent to adultery. But as I’ve pointed out more than once, if the Redeemer had meant to condemn every form of sex, sexual conduct, and parasexual self-expression, He would not have stopped at Thou shalt not commit adultery. Adultery is the violation of one’s marriage vows, nothing more. Etymologically, the word adultery means to another. It does not apply to the unmarried and unbetrothed. One of the most piercing statement about the abjuration of sex appears in Robert A. Heinlein’s early novella If This Goes On:

     “Shut up. Take sex away from people. Make it forbidden, evil, limit it to ritualistic breeding. Force it to back up into suppressed sadism. Then hand the people a scapegoat to hate. Let them kill a scapegoat occasionally for cathartic release. The mechanism is ages old. Tyrants used it centuries before the word ‘psychology’ was ever invented. It works, too.”

     And not just secular tyrants, Gentle Reader. Religious tyrants have done the same, mostly to the same effect, with an additional motive in the mix: Sex is a competitor that clerics have always feared. It reduces the time and energy – perhaps other resources as well – that their communicants have available for the church! Ban it! Anathematize it! Cram it into the smallest corner of human life possible. Make it licit only within marriage, and only for breeding purposes. That will keep their pants belted and zipped!

     Another of Heinlein’s characters has something to say here: “If God hated flesh, why did He make so much of it?” And answer comes there none.


     Our current era is one in which the sexes have been induced to mistrust one another. While members of both have behaved badly, the greater part of the odium belongs to women, who have bought into the “war between the sexes” cant promulgated by feminist activists and have founded a great deal of ugly, vicious, and self-absorbed behavior on it. A novel by a favorite writer makes passing note of this, in a context far from our own:

     Teaching men to subserviently kowtow to a woman’s every whim, while the women are taught to harshly scrutinize their partners for any possible fault, is not a recipe for happy relationships….
     In contrast, with Tina everything was easy. She’d been raised to believe that the best way for a woman to get by in the world was to marry a good man and keep him happy so he’d want to take care of her. She was perfectly happy with this, contrary to what a modern feminist would expect, and her innocent eagerness to please was terribly attractive. Granted, she wasn’t the sharpest tool in the shed, but so what? She was still better company than ninety percent of the people I’d ever met.

     Tina, the character mentioned above, knows that:

  • She’s moderately attractive;
  • She lacks merchandisable skills that would support her;
  • The world she lives in is massively threatening even to strong, capable men;
  • Marrying a good man and sincerely striving to keep him happy is a reliable script in that world.

     Women in our world have more options, but many who follow a careerist script find it ultimately unsatisfying. As a spear-shaker character in one of my novels says:

     They talked to a woman from New York City. While still young, she had thrown herself wholesale into the corporate world. “One moment I was just graduating from law school,” she said. “I looked down at my desk, blinked, looked up, and suddenly I was an old woman with nothing in the world but money and work.” She had had brothers who were dearer to her than life itself, but had lost contact with them after college and somehow never managed to reestablish it.

     While there are “Tinas” in our world who regret or are disappointed by their choices, there are fewer these days than the careerists. But this is a side issue. My point is that the possibility of “traditional” intimacy between a man and a woman is rarer, more difficult to kick off, and more fraught with peril of many kinds than has ever before been the case. This impels men to seek substitutes – and those substitutes don’t necessarily have to be “in the flesh” to provide at least a modicum of relief from the sense of isolation and futurelessness so many men suffer today.

     He who condemns such a substitute is likely to be among the luckier few who have what they want and need in an intimate relationship.


     Not what you might have expected from a dried-up old Catholic who’s not sure he remembers how to spell sex, eh? But there it is. Thou shalt not commit adultery: no more and no less. And by the way, Love your neighbor as you love yourself, or in an equivalent, equally compelling formulation, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Judge not, for you shall also be judged, and the measure you use, whether it be stringent and unforgiving or tolerant and understanding, will be the measure you receive.

     Miss Love, a conservative and a Christian, understands this. Charlie Peters does not.

     Have a nice day.

Saturday, August 24, 2019

When Smart People Say Foolish Things

     “I do not need protecting,” she said. “I can take care of myself.”
     “You are a fine fencer,” I said. “Unfortunately, life is more complicated than a fair dueling situation.”
     “I know that. I'm not a child. But—”
     “ 'But' nothing! He did the same thing I'd do if you were mine. He's protecting himself as well as you. I'm surprised he let Brand know about you. He's going to be damned mad that I found out.” Her head jerked and she stared at me, eyes wide.
     “But you wouldn't do anything to hurt us,” she said. “We-we're related.”
     “How the hell do you know why I'm here or what I'm thinking?” I said. “You might have just stuck both your necks in nooses!”
     “You are joking, aren't you?” she said, slowly raising her left hand between us.
     “I don't know,” I said. “I need not be-and I wouldn't be talking about it if I did have something rotten in mind, would I?”
     “No... I guess not,” she said.
     “I am going to tell you something Benedict should have told you long ago,” I said. “Never trust a relative. It is far worse than trusting strangers. With a stranger there is a possibility that you might be safe.”
     “You really mean that, don't you?”
     “Yes.”
     “Yourself included?”
     I smiled. “Of course it does not apply to me. I am the soul of honor, kindness, mercy, and goodness. Trust me in all things.”

     [Roger Zelazny. The Guns Of Avalon]

     The above, from one of Zelazny’s justly famous Amber novels, nicely captures the internecine quarrels of the royal family of that realm. Its ruler, Oberon, has gone missing and is presumed dead. Every one of his sons and daughters wants the crown. Every one of them is willing to murder all the others to get it. For any one of them to trust any other would be an act of insanity – and therefore, trust among them is nonexistent. That’s the perspective from which Corwin, one of Amber’s princes and the narrator in the above, is speaking to his niece Dara, whom he’s only just met.

     The absence of trust makes room for the operation of other qualities that trust can – and sometimes does – obscure. One of them is dispassionate analysis.


     As long as I’m in a quoting mood, here’s another:

     "Excuse me, Miss," Stromberg's voice boomed out. Teresza jerked her head around to find the sociologist and most of the class staring straight at her. "Yes, you who're holding Mr. Morelon's hand in a grip of steel." A titter ran through the hall. Teresza flushed. "Do you have an opinion on the subject?"
     "Uh, no, Professor." Teresza rose and gathered her thoughts as best she could. "I was just surprised to hear that they had all that junk."
     Stromberg smiled broadly. "Everyone is, Miss...?"
     "Chistyakowski."...
     "Well, you may take my word for it, Miss. In 2061, thirty-four percent of the economy of the richest sector, which was called the United States, was devoted to entertainment and diversions. As a category, that outstripped the second largest sector, medical services, by more than two to one. If our histories are accurate, its products were consumed with an unbelievable avidity, and its customers were perpetually hungry for more." He leaned forward over his lectern and peered hard at her. "Would you care to venture an opinion as to why they wanted so many frivolities and distractions?"
     Two hundred pairs of eyes pressed against her as she groped for a response. She squeezed Armand's hand and tried to think.
     The household she and her father kept was simple and modest. They had all they needed and a handful of minor luxuries, but no one would have thought their lifestyle lavish. Yet she couldn't think of anyone she knew whose surroundings were substantially more opulent. Not even the Morelons, whose wealth would have sufficed to buy the Gallatin campus ten or twenty times over.
     But why would anyone want to be surrounded by all that junk in the first place?
     "Professor," she said slowly, "I can't help asking the question the other way around. We could have all that stuff if we wanted it, couldn't we?"
     Stromberg grinned suggestively. "Indeed we could, Miss."
     "So why don't we?"

     Teresza’s question is the question of the day. Indeed, it’s the question of our nation and our era. And apparently the answer to it, though in plain sight, is being ignored or overlooked by some very bright and articulate people.


     The second citation above concerns the colony world of Hope, which is utterly without governments of any description. Thus, it lacks the overheads subjugation by a government imposes: laws, regulations, armies, police forces, other agents and agencies, and the taxes required to support them. The absence of those overheads has allowed the colonists to advance from pretechnological subsistence to roughly the technological-economic status of the United States in 1960 in only twelve hundred years – and that despite an ecology that’s lethally hostile to Earth-derived life. The colonists, descendants of a group of anarchist exiles who called themselves Spoonerites, like their ungoverned status just fine. Hope society emerged as family-oriented.

     That was also American society in 1960. While certain technologies were still maturing in 1960, all the elements were present to give swift rise to every one of the fripperies of today. Yet there was no pressure for those things. Rather, American adults concentrated on making a living, maintaining peaceful and orderly households and communities, and producing and raising their children.

     America’s markets in 1960 were appreciably freer than they are today. The six decades since have seen an explosion of coercive laws and regulations, nearly always under the overt rationale of “protecting the consumer.” The emergence of virtually all the luxury consumer-non-durable goods of today followed the imposition of all those laws and regulations, and – of course – the explosion in taxation that accompanied them.

     The federal government soon discovered that taxation was not enough to fund its new voracity. The Laffer Effect defeated rates above a certain revenue-optimum level. The sole alternative was to borrow. The Federal Reserve system guaranteed that large-scale federal borrowing would result in inflation.

     The accelerating rise in the cost of living compelled Americans to embrace the two-income family. For many, overtime labor became the way of survival. The repercussions were not long in coming. The reduction in the amount of time and energy that went to family and community matters was felt almost immediately. Children needed something to substitute for the attention of their parents, and parents needed something to distract their children from their parents’ obsessive concern with expenses, debt, and their futures.

     The proliferation of consumer fripperies was a response to these things, not the cause of them.


     Some very smart people, quite as concerned with the deterioration of our families and neighborhoods as I, have assailed our markets as “too efficient.” The late Robert Nisbet, a towering intellect, once wrote that “our markets may be too efficient for life on a human scale.” I have no doubt that he was sincere. Nevertheless, the correlation between the explosion in luxury consumer non-durables fooled him as it has fooled others.

     You’ll see a lot of opinion writing that echoes Nisbet these days. Most of it is by self-described conservatives. Here’s a recent sample. Yet there’s nothing conservative about measures that enable the advancement of government power and intrusion. Objections to the freely chosen behavior of Americans in the American marketplace can only empower the statists among us. Rather, we should be looking at reducing the size and intrusiveness of our 88,000 governments – federal, state, county, municipal, and school district – back to pre-World War I levels.

     Would that guarantee a return to the family-oriented society of those years? No, it would not. There are no guarantees in sociodynamics. But it would remove the propellants that powered our flight from it. Moreover, it would restore a great part of the freedom Americans once enjoyed: an autonomy untroubled by fears of not being able to meet present or future bills. It would reinstitute conditions in which Americans’ paramount attention could go to things close to home, rather than to a rat race toward a potentially illusory security.

     I’ll let Professor Arne Stromberg, holder of the Edmond Genet Chair in Sociology at Gallatin University, the foremost center of higher learning on Alta, the northern continent of Hope, close this tirade:

     “Families are the fundamental building blocks of a stable society. Extended families—clans—are the best conceivable environment for the rearing of children, the perpetuation of a commercial forte, and the germination of new families and their ventures. A clan like yours, Miss Albermayer, conserves a brilliant genetic line and a priceless medical specialty at the same time. A clan like yours, Mr. Morelon, makes possible a benign agricultural empire and produces natural leaders one after another while connecting Hope to its most distant origins. And all healthy families, which cherish life and bind their members to one another in unembarrassed love, can find far more to occupy and amuse them than they need."
     Teresza's mind lit with memories of the way the Morelons had enfolded her and made her one of them. No day could have been long enough for all they had to say and do and share with one another.
     "When Earth's regard for families and their most fundamental function deteriorated, her people ceased to enjoy the sorts of ties that had held them together throughout the history of Man. Without families, and especially without children, they groped for other things to fill their time, whether to give them a sense of purpose, or to distract them from the waning of their lives. Some invested themselves in industry or commerce, but without the sense of the family line to be built up and made prominent, those things failed to satisfy. Others immersed themselves in games, toys, fripperies, and increasingly bizarre forms of entertainment, which palled on them even faster. Still others made a fetish out of sex; there was a substantial sex industry on Earth, though it tended to operate in the shadows and was seldom openly discussed. They needed emotion and substance, but all they could contrive was sensation and novelty, and they pumped an ever greater share of their effort and wealth into seeking them. That's my thesis, for what it's worth."
     The hall was silent. Teresza peered furtively at the faces of the students nearest her. The majority of them were wet with tears.
     "For us," Stromberg said, "it's enough that we're happy, secure, and free. We don't really need to know definitively why our statist forebears traveled a path so different from our own. But it's among the great mysteries of social science, and worth thinking about from time to time even in isolation."

     Indeed it is.

Wednesday, July 24, 2019

Transgenderism, Conservatism, And Public Restrooms

     Quite a title, eh? No, it’s not that I’m “in a mood.” And it’s not that I’ve suddenly been possessed by the ghost of Dave Mason, who (as far as I know) is still alive. (Famous send-up of the song titles on his first album, Alone Together: “I Couldn’t Think Of A Shorter Title; Could You Think Of A Shorter Title?”) Those three elements are merely the linchpins for today’s little pseudo-Jeremiad...those three, and this article forwarded to me by my favorite Twenty-First Century Jeremiah, Pascal:

     There’s a few articles out there now on a ‘conservative trans woman’ who apparently said a few things about the transgender idiot in Canada that got offended when a bunch of women wouldn’t wax his…..ya know:

     Conservative and transgender…um….what?

     The [first] I heard of this was from Steve Deace, who noticed this in his timeline and had a similar reaction:

     I agree with him completely. You can’t just abandon the most basic essence of our humanity and call yourself a conservative.

     Now, I don’t know the first thing about Steve Deace. I’m not familiar with his published opinions or other work (if any). And the cited article is “published by The Right Scoop,” so I must treat it as unsigned. But the sloppy thinking exemplified in the above should be a lesson to anyone who presumes to comment on a complex cultural and sociopolitical issue that deserves a radical simplification (and right BLEEP!ing now, at that).

     Close your tray tables, return your seats to the fully upright position, and buckle yourself in securely, Gentle Reader; this ride’s about to get bumpy.


     It’s become my preference, in these latter years of my life and swiftly waning tolerance for poor thinking, to explore the thornier subjects in a fictional context. Indeed, that preference is the reason for my most recent stories and novels:

     Stories have power, both explanatory and persuasive, that exceeds the power of argument and exposition. No matter its premises nor its setting, to be entertaining and edifying a story must show us plausible characters embroiled in the solution of important problems – important to them, at any rate – in a fashion we can imagine real people embracing in the real world. Mind you, they might fail. They might incur consequences that cost them severely. But people’s problems and their attempts to confront them are the key to dramatic fiction.

     Transgenderism is an attempt by some persons – about ninety percent of them born male – to solve a particular problem. Their perception of that problem might strike others as irrational, as evidence of an emotional disorder, or what have you. But that’s irrelevant, as is anyone else’s opinion of one person’s personal problems...as long as the afflicted one keeps the problem, its consequences, and the consequences of his chosen solution or palliation entirely to himself.

     Therein lies the rub with transgenderism. Once a phenomenon has been politicized – made into something that demands legislative or judicial intervention – privacy is no longer available to most of those involved.


     It’s only a few months ago that I last wrote about this subject. At the time I hoped my thoughts would bring some peace to the matter, at least among the Gentle Readers of Liberty’s Torch. Perhaps that is the case, but it’s clear that society in general remains disturbed by it. The origin of the disturbance is the “trans activist:” he who demands some variety of legal recognition and sanction for the decision to present oneself as the other sex. As anyone with three functioning brain cells could have foreseen (and the Law of Equilibrium guaranteed ab initio), there arose counter-activists: persons utterly opposed to such recognition and determined to prevent it.

     Perspective is important here. Americans have been undergoing various kinds of sex transition for many, many years:

  1. Type 1: Some don’t bother with anything but clothing and cosmetics.
  2. Type 2: Others purchase depilations and breast implants.
  3. Type 3: Still others go for more elaborate surgeries – in some cases, elaborate enough that their birth sex is no longer detectable except by genetic assay.

     Each level has its own costs and consequences, both for the transitioner and for those around him.

     The private consequences, if “private” means “confined strictly to those willing to deal with them,” are tolerable. The public consequences are the problems...but to this point, the problems are effectively confined to pronouns, potties, and “pride marches.”

     I have absolutely no sympathy for the trans activists who demand that their decisions receive social approbation and legal enforcement. I regard them as a bleeding canker on the body politic. They are a curse on their quiet, privacy-inclined brethren. Indeed, were it not for such persons, there would be no issue whatsoever about transgenderism.

     What’s that you say? You want proof? Why certainly, Gentle Reader! Coming right up. I hope you’re braced – and if it makes you “uncomfortable” to have your illusions shattered, don’t say I didn’t warn you.


     First, have a snippet from The Wise and the Mad:

     Holly crossed the threshold of Costigan’s Pub in a state of unaccustomed uncertainty. She scanned for Walsingham as she rounded into the dining area and spotted him seated in a booth. He rose when he saw her approach. She composed herself as best she could and joined him.
     “Thank you for coming, Holly,” he said. “I must admit I was a bit surprised when you said that you could get away.”
     “Ro and I aren’t joined at the hip, Sir Thomas. We each have some independent pursuits. Besides, on the phone you said you wanted to chat about Unashamed. That’s a conversation for two, not three. And Ro hasn’t read it.”
     “She hasn’t?” he said. “I should have thought she’d read it page by page as it rolled out of your typewriter.”
     “Why would you think so?”
     He frowned. “Isn’t it about her?”
     She laughed. “Heavens, no! I’d never craft a tale around a real person. Especially not someone as dear to me as Ro. It would be an unconscionable invasion of privacy. Here in America that can get you sued.”
     “Hm. It seemed so certain.” A waitress approached bearing an uncorked bottle of Cuvee Rouge and two stemmed glasses. He thanked her, poured a generous amount into a glass, and pushed it toward Holly. “This is from the same winery as that nice Riesling that graced your table yesterday evening.”
     “Thank you.” He filled his own glass. “To your health.” They clinked and sipped.
     “We have these transgenders on the eastern side of the pond as well,” he said, “but ours have made much less noise than yours. An English thing, no doubt. Your protagonist Heidi seems out of the usual run for the U.S. She values her privacy and displays a most attractive reserve. It made her seem English, and quite appealing, despite...” He trailed off.
     Holly grinned. “You were about to say ‘despite her disorder’ or some such, weren’t you?”
     He nodded. “It is a disorder, you know. A man once born cannot become a woman in truth.”
     “Agreed,” Holly said. “Yet it is not impossible for one born a man to present as a woman. Hormones, minor surgery, cosmetics, and diligent study of the personalities and mannerisms of women will suffice for those who already have feminine inclinations and aspects of appearance. For example, you just referred to Heidi as ‘her’ without any apparent tension. That suggests that my portrayal of her in Unashamed was convincingly feminine. I gave her the appropriate appearance, personality, and manner to persuade others to take her as a woman and to treat her as such. I had her respond to such treatment as a woman would respond. An American woman, at any rate. Thus, despite her Y chromosome and male genitalia, she was able to pass in common society as a woman, as was her preference. Only if she had chosen to announce her birth sex to those around her, or to bare her lower body in public, would there have been any conflict about it. Any necessary conflict, that is.”
     He blinked and set his glass on the table.
     “What about love?”
     Holly smiled. “Didn’t Heidi and Roland solve that puzzle adequately?”
     “Yes...yes.” He looked briefly away. “It should not have startled me. We have those on the other side of the Atlantic, as well.”
     Holly took a moment to choose her next words.
     “I’ve been told that a wise man once said that ‘love laughs at hardware.’ I know the sort of love Heidi and Roland chose to enjoy isn’t to everyone’s taste. It’s not that long since it was illegal, both here and in the U.K. Oscar Wilde went to prison for it, did he not?”
     “He did,” Walsingham said.
     “Is sodomy still against the law across the water?”
     “That law was overturned quite some time ago,” he said. “There have been attempts to have it reinstated, but all have failed.”
     “It’s the same here, and just as well,” Holly said. “There can be no pretense of autonomy or personal privacy in a land where the private bodily conduct of consenting individuals is a fit subject for the attention of the police.”
     Walsingham’s face worked. “That is the usual argument. Yet there are many who regard the maintenance of society’s moral standards to be of greater importance.”
     “I know. It’s unclear to some how utterly impossible it is to have both individual freedom and legally enforced sexual standards at once. The Constitution was the touchstone for reform here, particularly the Fourth Amendment. But America has groups demanding the return of the old laws, too.”
     She drained her glass. Walsingham gestured at her with the bottle, and she nodded. As he poured she said “As you know, a law that specifies permitted and forbidden modes of sexual conduct would pose a huge problem for Rowenna. Given her bodily configuration—”
     “Her alternatives are celibacy or functioning as a man,” he said. “I’m aware. But it doesn’t appear a problem for you and Rowenna. You are lovers, are you not?”
     Here it comes.
     Holly inclined her head. “Yes, we are.”
     “And it would seem that the tension that arises from making love to what seems a woman but having her function sexually toward you as a man has caused you no difficulty,” he said. “Or no amount you could not surmount.”
     She smiled and saluted him with her glass.
     “I do present rather convincingly as a woman, don’t I, Sir Thomas?”
     He paled.

     I offer no apologies for the length of that segment. Read it. Imagine it being played out in real life – as it is each and every day, by successful transitioners who keep their origins (and their genitalia) to themselves.

     Holly Martinowski, the viewpoint character in the above, is a Type 2 transwoman: clothing, cosmetics, depilations, and breast implants. Sir Thomas Walsingham, her interlocutor, is unaware of it until the very end of the scene. She has an agenda, but it’s not social, legal, or (God help us all) political. It’s to help her flatmate and lover Rowenna, born a futanari, to reconcile with Walsingham, her father. Other than that, she’s a private person who was born male but “presents” as a woman. As she demands nothing from anyone, she is entitled to her privacy and to the tolerance of those around her.

     Imagine Holly using the women’s restroom at Costigan’s Pub. Imagine her going in, doing her business therein, washing her hands, perhaps powdering her nose, and emerging. Would anyone be moved to indignation? Why? Her public presentation is convincing. She hasn’t attacked anyone or exposed her lower body to anyone. Neither has anyone attacked her. So who would be incensed, and why?

     Now imagine that someone who knows, from other sources, that Holly was born Horace is present and raises a row over it. Who has committed the offense against the public peace, and why?

     As we mathematical types like to say, quod erat demonstrandum. No, don’t applaud; just buy my novels – and read them, and think. For the love of God and the future of the Republic, set your preconceptions and prejudices aside and think!


     Blaire White, the transwoman featured (?) in the linked article from The Right Scoop, decided early on to go public about her decision. Her motives are her own; the consequences are not. One of those consequences is the sort of foofaurauw raised by Steve Deace and the writer(s) of the cited article. Yet had Blaire not chosen to go public, she would be as convincing as my fictional character Holly. She would pass as a woman born, and no one would have any cause to complain about her. So the reactions to her are entirely a consequence of not keeping her private decisions to herself. She’s intelligent, so she knows this.

     Deace and the Right Scoop editorialist commit a glaring sin against their own supposed conservatism by implying that Blaire cannot be a political conservative. What’s more conservative, politically, than an emphasis on the sanctity of personal privacy? Blaire has sacrificed her privacy for a reason, in my opinion, a good one: to demonstrate that there is such a thing as the socially tolerable transitioner. But she doesn’t demand that others accept her, or kowtow to her pronouncements.

     Transgenderism is a social and political problem only insofar as we allow it to become one. Unfortunately, the forces of chaos and division are using it as a stick to beat us with. That’s bad. It should be fought. But it should be fought on the correct grounds: the importance of personal privacy about intimate decisions to the preservation of vital social norms and public conduct. As there is no more intimate decision than whether to transition, or to what extent, I’m tempted to say that that “should” be “obvious.” Unfortunately once again, apparently it takes a Certified Galactic Intellect to make it obvious to a significant fraction of the “conservatives” among us.

Thursday, June 27, 2019

Overextensions And Corrective Mechanisms, Part 1

     Most people are willing to give up their preconceptions...once they’ve had them tattooed on their heads with a blunt instrument. – Keith Laumer

     We all want to believe there’s An Answer: a single great revelation that, properly understood and applied, would solve all “problems” and usher in Utopia. Mind you, I didn’t say that we all do believe it; just that we all want to. The desire seems to be built into the deep structure of our minds.

     Some years ago, there was a popular bumper sticker:

Christ Is Your Answer

     I’m a religious man, but even I could see the difficulties there. Is Christ the answer to the flood in my basement? How about to my property taxes, or to the poison ivy in my back yard? Yes, Christ Is The Answer to the overarching human problem: how to conduct oneself so as to gain admission to eternal bliss in the next life. But for a whole range of temporal problems, even the most devout Christian must reach for the phone, the checkbook, or the RoundUp® rather than a crucifix.

     Single, all-encompassing Answers that would function as absolute panaceas are lacking. This is especially so in that maddeningly thorny realm we call politics.


     Some years ago, in what I consider to be my most important political analysis, I strove to demonstrate that two political families, one far better established than the other, had important things to say to one another – and that both had a need to listen. It drew quite a lot of praise. But many who were pleased by that essay, or by parts of it, managed to miss the underlying principle, which is of so much greater importance that it cannot be overstated:

All Human Visions Are Partial.

     As we are temporal creatures with finite powers, there are limits to what we can do, see, and conceive. Those limits dictate that our “answers” will also be limited. The implications “should” be “obvious”...but they’re not. First among those implications is this one: Every idea has a domain of applicability, outside which is it useless or worse.

     I recall first tumbling to this in a discussion of investment strategies with an older, much more experienced coworker. At the time he was investigating the Elliott Wave theory, which had a considerable grip on many investors’ thinking. He allowed that the wave pattern was suggestive, and that the associated theory had some appeal, but he also noted a flaw in the reasoning of its chief proponents: They never said where Elliott Wave analysis would fail to apply, nor did they ever allow that there might be any such conditions.

     It was a major “of course!” moment for a young thinker. Elliott Wave proponents hold out their theory as The Answer, at least within the huge domain of equities-market analysis. In that sense, the theory is Utopian in nature. It admits to no bounds on its applicability. Elliott Wave advocates are adroit at explaining away cases that appear to contradict their analysis. Such evasions render the theory more an article of faith than a useable technique of technical analysis.

     That “of course!” illumination would serve me well when I set sail onto the turbulent seas of political theory and political economy.


     I spent a number of years studying anarchism as an approach to the problems of social organization. Anarchism has many attractions. David Friedman and others have written much about the subject. Yet the most dedicated proponents of anarchism can all foresee difficulties that would destabilize and politicize an anarchist society.

     Anarchism, like all political propositions, has a domain of applicability. Outside that domain it functions poorly. If pressed to go outside its proper domain, it’s rapidly destabilized and replaced by some kind of government. I made this point in the Foreword to Freedom’s Fury:

     I shan’t attempt to deceive or misdirect you: I’m horrified by politics and all its fruits. I consider the use of coercive force against innocent men the greatest of all the evils we know. But I try, most sincerely, to be realistic about the world around us. In that world, peopled by men such as ourselves, anarchism—the complete abjuration and avoidance of the State—is unstable. In time, it will always give way to politics. Hammer it to the earth as many times as you may, you will never succeed in killing it permanently. The State will rise again.

     I strove to illustrate the process in the tale told in that novel. (If you find that intriguing, beware: Freedom’s Fury is the third volume of a trilogy.)


     The libertarian movement, of which I was once an activist and in which I still find much that’s admirable, has made a number of missteps. Several of them derive from the inability to admit that as an organizing principle, individual freedom has a domain of applicability outside which one must not attempt to push it. I noted a few of the problems in The Conservative-Libertarian Schism. I’m sure the thoughts I provided there can be extended.

     If I’m to avoid monotony here, I suppose I should make the key statement right away. It’s key because individuals are...individuals. Smith doesn’t agree with Jones about what constitutes a “problem” that demands a “solution.” Both of them are at odds with Davis. And just as individuals have individual views and priorities, so also will families, groups, communities, and nations:

For any given thing you might want:
What price are you willing to pay?
And what price is your neighbor willing to pay
That you might have it at his expense?

     As decision-making units enlarge, considerations that are both opinion-bound and frankly political rise to eclipse considerations that individuals prize most highly. We can see it even in the “direct democracy” of the old New-England-style “town meeting,” at which every resident has a vote on every issue. In the practical sense, not every Jones is willing for every Smith to have unfettered personal freedom of action. Quite a number of Joneses would object to having neighbor Smith blare obscene music from his rooftop at pain-threshold levels, even on a nominal holiday. Virtually all Joneses would be averse to living immediately next door to a slaughterhouse. Such things leave bad impressions on the kids, to say nothing of property values.

     Rights theory, so critically important when we strive to cope with interactions between individuals, tends to fade when decision-making is done by groups. Respect for individual freedom, something virtually all Americans would profess, starts to be demoted in priority when neighborhood effects, externalities, and other implied consequences of absolute personal latitude arise to bedevil us.

     This is not to say that individuals’ rights can ever be completely ignored in collective decision-making. There are absolutes that must not be transgressed. However, even in this regard there are thorny cases, as Jack Vance has shown us:

     Xanten made an airy gesture. “A.G. Philidor, you oversimplify grievously. Do you consider me obtuse? There are many kinds of history. They interact. You emphasize morality. But the ultimate basis of morality is survival. What promotes survival is good; what induces mortifaction is bad.”
     “Well spoken!” declared Philidor. “But let me propound a parable. May a nation of a million beings destroy a creature who otherwise will infect all with a fatal disease? Yes, you will say. Once more: ten starving beasts hunt you, that they may eat. Will you kill them to save your life? Yes, you will say again, though here you destroy more than you save. Once more: a man inhabits a hut in a lonely valley. A hundred spaceships descend from the sky, and attempt to destroy him. May he destroy these ships in self-defense, even though he is one and they are a hundred thousand? Perhaps you will say yes. What, then, if a whole world, a whole race of beings, pits itself against this single man? May he kill all? What if the attackers are as human as himself? What if he were the creature of the first instance, who otherwise will infect a world with disease? You see, there is no area where a simple touchstone avails. We have searched and found none. Hence, at the risk of sinning against Survival, we—I, at least; I can only speak for myself—have chosen a morality which at least allows me calm. I kill—nothing. I destroy—nothing.”

     More anon.

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Revenant Conservatism

     The Kristols, Irving and Bill, have been associated with conservative thought and policies for decades. Irving Kristol was among the first “neo-conservatives,” and an important contributor to Commentary and similar publications. His son Bill edits The Weekly Standard and frequently appears as a representative of institutional conservatism on various radio and television shows.

     Neither Kristol displays much affection for the constitutional and classical-liberal ideas that largely define conservatism today. (We can, of course, forgive Irving for that, as he passed on in 2008.) Bill Kristol recently made his preferences explicit:

     Obviously strongly prefer normal democratic and constitutional politics. But if it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state.

     How a man can advocate constitutional politics yet prefer the “deep state” to the closest constitutional politics has come in decades, I cannot imagine...unless it’s because Kristol’s meaning for the word conservative is reverting to its origins.


     Conservative shares its root with conserve:

Conserve \Con*serve"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Conserved; p. pr. & vb. n. Conserving.] [F. conserver, L. conservare; con- + servare to keep, guard. See Serve.]
     1. To keep in a safe or sound state; to save; to preserve; to protect. [1913 Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary]

     The original conservative politics was, quite simply, resistance to change. A high school American History teacher of mine was vehement about it: “The conservative wishes to conserve,” he proclaimed upon many occasions. He stubbornly opposed political or social changes of any sort. If change is to be entertained at all, he would say, let it be in small increments...and the smaller, the better.

     It should give my Gentle Readers a full sense of that teacher’s conservatism to note that he held Thomas Jefferson to be a wild-eyed anarchist whose libertarian ideals were inherently unworkable. He did what he could to inculcate that belief in his students.

     This appears to be the direction in which institutional conservatism is headed. Institutions, of course, are inherently opposed to large changes. The prospect of significant alterations in the Way Things Are threatens to destabilize the assumptions, customs, and practices on which an institution is based. Thus it is no great leap of the imagination to suspect that the institutional conservative would prefer The Way Things Are to go unperturbed even if they’re obstructive, costly, or unjust. He’s “done a corner in them.”

     Bill Kristol is a good representative of that mindset.


     The institutional conservatism of the Kristols is inimical to insurgent conservatism: those of constitutionalist or classical-liberal bent who call for limited government, the demise of the Deep State, and a strict conformity to Constitutional prescriptions and proscriptions in our laws and political processes. Insurgent conservatism had a pretty good run during the 80s and 90s. Reagan was its standard-bearer. It largely succeeded in checking the Clinton Administration’s more grandiose schemes. The Bushes largely disappointed it, and of course Barack Hussein Obama horrified it.

     What insurgent conservatives did not expect was that the institutionals would league with the Big Government Left to oppose us. But then, we hardly stopped to ponder the nature of the institutional mindset, and institutionals have always “talked a good game.”

     The institutionals view Donald Trump as an interloper who threatens to bring down the legal and political edifices in which they shelter. There are several facets to this. The most important of them is institutionals’ comfort with the Deep State: the bureaucracies and mechanisms that dominate contemporary American life. The Deep State provides the stability institutionals cherish while simultaneously giving them a rhetorical punching bag...not that they ever hit it too powerfully. That the Deep State is inherently unfriendly to individual freedom, limited government, and economic growth is of far less importance than that stability to the institutions that have accommodated themselves to it.

     Immediately after that comes the nature of the institutionals’ enterprise. They live to provide rhetorical opposition to the Big Government Left. It’s their livelihood. Their magazines, policy studies, and the rest might rail against the Deep State, but were it to vanish, the institutionals would be out of work. It would compel them to change trades. The Trump Insurgency, with its exuberant populist-oriented conservatism, is a direct threat to their rice bowls.

     Third and last for today, there are personal networks linking the institutionals to their supposed adversaries in the American political elite. They tend not to speak of them, and strain to change the subject when those linkages are hauled into view. “Our sort” includes both institutional conservatives and the farthest-left of the Left. An elite is an institution in its own right: divergences among its members’ rhetoric seldom impede the desire to “get along” and remain in good odor with “the boys,” whether it’s for profit or ongoing inclusion.


     People are generally resistant to change. As Arthur Herzog has written, “Change is hard, and difficulty makes people impatient.” Yet America has given birth to a large-scale movement that demands changes of a particular sort. Its standard-bearer is a man of untamed tongue who’s accustomed to getting things done, on time and within budget at that, and he’s begun in admirable style. The institutions – Left and Right – feel the tremors in their floorboards. It’s more important to them to quiet those tremors than to achieve any legal or political ideal either has ever proposed in pixels or print.

     The revenant conservatism of the institutionals, that regards The Way Things Are as The Way Things Ought To Be In Perpetuity, is no friend of change. Neither can we expect it to embrace the changes the Trump Administration has ignited, unless in an attempt to co-opt and nullify the forces that propel them.

Friday, September 9, 2016

Two Rights Don’t Make A Wrong

     Suddenly the airwaves are aflame with controversy – mostly hand-wringing, really – about the “Alt-Right.” As matters worsen here in the Land of the Formerly Free, we can expect to hear more of this, for several reasons:

  • The Left needs a chimera with which to frighten the uninformed;
  • The “orthodox” Right doesn’t want to be “misunderstood,” especially by the media;
  • Commentators need something to write about, and like “The sky is falling” for the subliminal theme.

     The ironies are beyond counting.

     The Alt-Right emerged out of outrage at the spinelessness of the “orthodox” Right, particularly the Ortho-Right's terror of having anything negative said about it in the Main Stream Media. If you, Gentle Reader, an American of generally pro-American and pro-freedom bent but perhaps confused about this separation, envision the Ortho-Right as John McCain and the Alt-Right as Milo Yiannopoulos, you'll have a pretty good picture of the reason for their extended-family squabble.

     Granted that many American conservatives wouldn’t be comfortable with having a British homosexual for their standard bearer, but that merely points up the most significant deficit accruing to the Alt-Right at this time: its lack of an attractive figurehead. We have yet to produce an attractive, dynamic, white, Christian heterosexual ballsy enough to stand front and center for propositions such as:

  1. The races differ in important ways.
  2. The sexes differ in important ways.
  3. Homosexuality is an emotional disorder.
  4. Christianity is benevolent; Islam is malevolent.
  5. Equality, except for equality before the law, is a myth.
  6. American culture is infinitely superior to all other cultures.
  7. America’s prosperity and stature are principally the achievements of whites.
  8. Most hostility to America – including from Americans – is powered by envy.
  9. Americans owe nothing to non-Americans, except to allow them to go to hell in their own fashion.
  10. It is normal, natural, and laudable to love one’s country, to want it to be strong and secure, and to be angry at seeing it derided, humiliated, or invaded.

     Still, there’s time.

     (Yes, I’ve said all those things before, emphatically and stridently. But I’m no leader; I’m an old crank desperately straining to prop up a house that’s determined to collapse upon my head.)

     Unfortunately, given the burgeoning strength of the movement and the convictions enumerated above, at some point a politician (Working maxim: “Show me the way the people are going and I will lead them”) will decide there’s enough potential money, votes, or publicity in the Alt-Right to fly frantically to the point of the V-formation and nominate himself as its leader. Yes, it will create opportunities for the Ortho-Right to co-opt the Alt-Right and “get it back onto the reservation.” Yes, it will be a time of danger for persons sincere in their convictions. But it’s in the nature of the overarching political dynamic:

Power is most likely to land in the hands of those who worship it

     ...that it will happen.


     The current principal importance of the Alt-Right, whether as a scare-label or an emergent community of convictions, is as a message to the Ortho-Right:

“You’ve screwed the pooch.”

     Until recently, no one in the Ortho-Right with any public following was willing to entertain, much less express, that simple truth. Yet it is irrefutable. The Left has dragged the Ortho-Right in its wake, using the power of the media and “political correctness” to keep the Ortho-Right a couple of steps to the right of the Left’s position. (Cf. “moving the Overton Window.”) The Ortho-Right, concerned above all else with remaining within the zone of “acceptable discourse,” has followed like an imprinted duckling. It’s become essentially useless to the cause of freedom, American national sovereignty, and Constitutionally limited government.

     What more is needed to gestate an energized dissident splinter like the Alt-Right? Especially when millions of Americans were already imploring “their representatives” to act in accordance with the convictions they professed to get elected – something those representatives have become unwilling to do?

     What we’ve been hearing, though usually in softer tones and words, from the luminaries of the Ortho-Right is that the Alt-Right is wrong. That’s being proclaimed as if it were the most obvious thing in the world, when in point of fact there is not one shred of objective evidence that any of the beliefs enumerated earlier is false, or even questionable. What those luminaries really mean to say is that the Alt-Right is dangerous, and indeed it is – to them. It threatens their prestige, their altitude, their carefully nurtured audience.

     There is no real contest of ideas between the two Rights. The Alt-Right proclaims certain convictions, for which there is profuse objective evidence. The Ortho-Right merely deplores those proclamations, calling them wrong when they’re really only in violation of the artificial norms we call “political correctness.” In a sense, both communities are correct. It’s just that the time for excessive deference to people’s sensibilities – especially the pretend sensibilities of the Left, which is ever on the alert for opportunities to proclaim itself offended – is far behind us; we have a country and a civilization to defend.

     Consider the likely reaction of the Ortho-Right to this nonsense. Consider what the Alt-Right would say in contrast. Then imagine the shock and horror among the Ortho-Right. Add this recent development, rinse, and repeat. Such contrasts produce a pretty accurate encapsulation of the Right-on-Right face-off.

     I expect to write more about this. Stay tuned.

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Conservatism? Or...Conservatism?

     The circumstances being what they are, it’s awfully hard for me not to think about politics. Perhaps it’s just as hard for you, Gentle Reader. The campaign grows ever noisier, accumulates ever more motifs and side issues, and generally consumes ever more “public space:” in our media, in our commerce and foreign relations, and in our several visions of what to expect from the years before us.

     One aspect that occupies quite a lot of the talking heads’ time and the broadcast and cablecast bandwidth is the supposed departure of the Republican Party from “conservatism” heralded by the ascent of Donald Trump. Trump, the pundits keep telling us, is “no conservative.” Trump himself, while he claims to be a conservative, noted in an interview that “this isn’t the Conservative Party; it’s the Republican Party.” All taken together, there’s a general sense that the GOP’s alignment with conservatism has been jarred loose.

     But when all the commentators agree on something like that, it’s usually worth a second look. This is one such case.


     Conservatism is more than a name for a cluster of policy positions. It’s also the name of an orientation: the determination to conserve: to protect and perpetuate that which is good. What flows from that attitude will depend on what one evaluates as good.

     Three areas of divergence between Trump and policies currently identified with political conservatism are of special interest this morning. All three bear upon America’s dealings with the rest of the world:

  1. Whether international trade should be completely free or taxed and controlled by law;
  2. Whether there should be any criteria for immigration to the United States;
  3. Whether the U.S. should wield its military power in foreign lands, in conflicts that don’t directly threaten a vital American interest.

     Commentator William Hawkins has argued that free trade is antithetical to “a conservative view of economics.” He framed an argument for a neomercantilist foreign trade policy, in which the law, including tax policy, would explicitly promote the enrichment of domestic commercial institutions. Such a stance implicitly demotes the priorities of individual consumers, as one cannot favor institutions without constraining the choices available to individuals.

     Though this is not a staple of conservative thinking today, it was the conservative view at the time of the American Revolution, as we see in Alexander Hamilton’s argument for the protection of the newborn U.S.’s “infant industries.” The nation, Hamilton wrote, would never achieve true independence from Europe without nurturing an independent commercial base, sufficient to make foreign trade a convenience rather than a necessity. Indeed, the promotion of free, largely untaxed international trade was the liberal position from the Revolution roughly to the Wilson Administration.

     Assimilation to America's norms – its language, laws, and important customs – was at one time a mandate laid upon the immigrant to our shores. Indeed, until the conclusion of World War II the primary purpose of the government-run public school system was to ensure that even if Mom and Dad retained the attitudes of the old country, Junior, Americanized by his education, would not. That policy made the waves of immigration that arrived here from 1865 through 1926 an asset rather than a threat to the nation.

     The public schools transitioned away from that mission over about the past sixty years. The ascendancy of moral and cultural relativism in the educational system was not possible before that; the nation was too greatly engaged in explicitly nationalistic enterprises, especially the two World Wars. Popular sentiment in the first half of the Twentieth Century would never have tolerated it; too many Americans, inherently conservative about their nation and its ways, would have asked “Is this what we fought and bled for?”

     The late Joseph Sobran argued, during the build-up to the first Iraq War in 1990, that our military intrusion into the Middle East could not by any exercise of imagination be justified as serving a vital American interest – i.e., an interest upon which the survival of the nation depends. In this he was expressing the original conservative view of military engagement. He was quite correct: Prior to World War I, remaining aloof from the quarrels of other nations was unquestionably the conservative position. The great conservative voices of the Twenties and Thirties, including Garet Garrett, John Flynn, and Lawrence Dennis, were unanimous in decrying American military involvement in Europe and Asia as not our proper business.

     However, among self-described conservatives, the “America First” attitude toward military undertakings had undergone a complete turnabout over the course of the Twentieth Century, in part because the Cold War had reshaped our perception of the world stage. Wars between minor nations were no longer regarded as minor skirmishes of no grand-strategic consequence, but as proxy battles between the two superpowers. Therefore, they could no longer be categorically ignored; they bore directly on America’s status as a “world power” vis-a-vis the Soviet Union.

     In all three of the policy areas enumerated above, conservative attitudes and stances flipped completely over the decades of the Twentieth Century. The cleavage between the “Old Right” conservative of the first decades and the conservative of the last ones was complete.


     I hold no brief for Donald Trump. I find his behavior morally questionable and his style irritating beyond belief. As for principles, if he has any they appear to be summarized in his mantra that “everything is a negotiation.” I doubt there’s a hill upon which he would make a last stand.

     That having been said, perhaps it’s not quite accurate to say he’s not a conservative. Surely the positions he’s expressed on the major issues enumerated here clash with those of most contemporary conservatives, especially the luminaries of conservative commentary. Yet a historical perspective suggests that his stances are more compatible with “Old Right” conservatism: the sheaf of attitudes and positions that conservatives largely espoused before conservative thought leaders accepted classical-liberal assumptions and modes of analysis.

     Who is right? Or more pointedly: Who is “Right?” From the perspective of American interests and the soundness of the American political edifice, the questions remain arguable; the answers depend largely upon what aspects of American life one holds as good. From the electoral perspective, we’ll see in November.

Sunday, November 30, 2014

The Political Christian: A Sunday Rumination

Last week, I vented about the inappropriateness of associating specific political positions with the Christian ethos:

There could hardly be anything more blasphemous than for a priest of Christ to state, from the pulpit, that Christians are under an obligation to support certain political parties or public policies. Yet we hear this sort of thing from far too many pulpits...and from far too many persons whose conception of Christ’s New Covenant is shallow, to say the least.

Yet there’s no denying that quite a lot of political blather flows from America’s pulpits. Much of it is collectivist, even Marxist, in orientation. Its advocates often make reference to the earliest Christians, who “held all things in common,” as if the emergency measures First-Century Christians adopted to safeguard their lives while they pursued the Great Commission in a lethally hostile era were equally applicable to us of Twenty-First-Century America.

One such as myself, whose politics falls well to the Right of center, will frequently be appalled by such preachments. Still worse would be to see huge numbers of Christians adopting them, as we in the Right know well the inevitable results of collectivism and dread to watch them at work in these United States.

But lay Christians can hardly charge our pulpits, eject the political preachers from them, and demand an immediate return to strict Gospel exegesis. It would cause talk, among other things. (I know it’s hard, but resist the temptation. I don’t want to have to bail you out of jail.) So what can we do?

Well, if memory serves, Jesus didn’t reserve the study or preaching of the Gospels to the Apostles alone.


It might be apocryphal, but a beautiful saying attributed to St. Francis of Assisi runs as follows:

“At all times, preach the Gospels.
When necessary, use words.”

Whether or not Francis of Assisi actually said any such thing, the wisdom of those words is plain, for people respond most reliably to a good example. Indeed, what is more clichéd than the condemnation of the sanctimonious hypocrite: he who publicly mouths pieties but privately wallows in vice? Mind you, hypocrisy is not the worst of sins, but to the extent it’s detectable and appears to go unpunished, it’s an important fuel for the degradation of a society. But the larger point is the important one here.

Many years ago, during the period when I was away from the Church, I chanced to spend an afternoon, under social circumstances, with a devoutly Christian extended family that glowed with joy. (That the paterfamilias was an entrepreneur in nuclear medicine probably had nothing to do with it.) Every member of the three generations present that day was quite literally beautiful, and a pure pleasure to have in one’s company. Though I never again saw any one of them, the occasion has remained vivid in my memory ever since.

I have no idea what their politics were. No political subject came up. Politics was entirely irrelevant to that gathering...nor, I suspect, was it relevant to that family at any other time. But neither did any religious subject come up. Apart from grace over a meal, not one of them said a single word about their common faith. If they preached their convictions on that day, it certainly wasn’t with words.

I couldn’t say whether those folks were extraordinary or important in any secular way. I didn’t get to know them well enough for that. Their happiness, as individuals and in aggregate, was dominant in my perception of them.

Return, if you will, to this piece, and reflect on the parallels.


It’s a well known phenomenon of politics that one’s chosen alignment often has much more to do with the sort of person one wants to associate with (and to appear to others) than with a reasoned set of conclusions about rights, justice, and public policy. The same might be true of religious convictions. The inverse seems beyond dispute; at least, I can’t imagine willingly adhering to a faith most of whose members strike me as vicious or personally repellent. (Also, it would account for the popularity of Islam in our prisons.)

The acceptance of a religion is a matter of personal commitment. It’s a voluntary adoption of certain beliefs and an associated code of conduct, not a license to compel others to conform to one’s preferences. The same is true of any other noncoercive system of belief or scheme for living. Thus, politics is utterly irrelevant to religious faith and ethics, and should be allowed no place in our preachments or our pulpits.

Still, I can’t help musing over the predominance of conservative political views among Americans who describe themselves as Christians. If those folks are as persuasive in their persons as that family I encountered so very long ago, it would go a long way toward explaining why the “red states” are also the bastions of American Christianity. We tend to gather with those we find admirable, whether or not our admiration is warranted. We tend to emulate those we deem successful, whatever our metrics for success. Even if we find it difficult to view persons who inspire others solely by example as preachers, it appears to be the style of evangelism best suited to the Christian ethos. If politics matters almost as much to you as your faith, and if it’s also the style of political evangelism best suited to the conservative / libertarian ethos, why not give it a try?

Hey, it might even work on that obnoxiously political priest whose sermons affect you like fingernails on a blackboard.

May God bless and keep you all.

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

The Sickness At The Heart Of Contemporary Conservatism

With all the lambasting I do of the Left, I sometimes forget to be “fair and balanced.” Mind you, that’s not to imply that the Right is equally sinful, or in the same ways. But self-nominated conservatives are far from stainless representatives of the True, the Good, and the Beautiful.

Have a gander at the following clinker, emitted by Kevin Williamson in the middle of a column in which it’s entirely gratuitous:

The Libertarian party should hold its convention at the Boot Track Café in Loving County, Texas, the least populated place in the United States; the café is closed at the moment, but I am sure that they would open it up to give the Libertarian party a place where its members — both of them — can be lonely together.

Oh, how clever. And how utterly irrelevant, mean-spirited, and small-souled. Do you suppose Mr. Williamson is aware that the most popular Republican now in federal office is libertarian Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky? But that might require that he confront data that doesn’t conform to his prejudices.

I’m getting rather sick of this garbage. I hear a lot of it from so-called conservatives, most of whom can’t even articulate what conservative means. Yes, the LP is small, far smaller than either major party. But do you suppose Mr. Williamson will be happy to be reminded of his cited statement the next time a Republican candidate loses by a small margin? Do you suppose, mindful of the LP’s trivial size, that he’ll refrain from castigating the Libertarian candidate for “stealing” votes from his partisan preference?

I left the LP because the persons rising to the leadership of the Party struck me as uncongenial and impossible to work with. But the core libertarian principle –i.e., that individuals have inalienable rights that no one may legitimately invade or infringe – remains a staple of my convictions. Within its sphere of application, it is unchallengeable...and never explicitly challenged, except by those who proclaim that “only might makes right.”

American political conservatism has been trending ever more strongly toward libertarian positions. This is a notable development, inasmuch as the heart of the conservative world view is a firm attachment to existing institutions and methods, many of which imply the exact reverse of inviolable individual rights. Yet there is important explanatory material here, for a political family’s most threatening competition comes from those whose principles and positions are closest to its own.

(No Democrat who loses his bid for office has ever blamed it on the Libertarian candidate. Food for thought.)

But if you want a really revealing look at the sickness at the heart of conservatism, consider how little conservatives really understand about the Rule of Law. John Hayward’s recent column provides a starting point:

Not only is the Rule of Law a hollow phrase in America today, it lacks the proper intrinsic weight. Even the most hideously savage regimes have laws, and they bloody well expect everyone to follow them, Or Else. The Islamic State has all sorts of laws, with divine authority cited for many of them. They’re even minting their own currency these days. If you know absolutely nothing else about a particular society except that it features absolute obedience to the Rule of Law, I suggest asking a few more questions before deciding to purchase a summer home there.

Yes, indeed. In particular, ask this one:

Are government agents permitted to break one law in the course of enforcing some other law?

...and demand a yes or no answer – unqualified.

What’s that? You want to know what I have in mind? How about just about everything? For example, the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, explicitly recognizes and guarantees certain rights of privacy and property in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Yet government agents routinely violate those rights for “law enforcement” purposes in the enforcement of other laws: everything from municipal zoning ordinances to the income tax and the War on Drugs. Indeed, we’re expected to surrender those rights upon request when a gaggle of myrmidons needs our property for a “stakeout;” recent developments in California have made this plain.

The usual excuse is “compelling government interest.” But under the theory behind the Constitution and the state charters, government, an agent with delegated powers, can have no interests of its own. It exists solely to discharge the responsibilities delineated for it in those documents, and for no other purpose.

A conservative who waves this aside to make room for his favorite intrusion on our rights – perhaps by saying something like “We’ve got to be practical” – is no friend of freedom. Nor will he rise to defend freedom when his personal ox is gored.

Quoth Louis Thiers:

Either rights exist, or they do not exist. If they exist, they involve absolute consequences...Furthermore, if a right exists, it exists at every moment. It is absolute today, yesterday, tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, in summer as in winter, not when it pleases you to declare it in force.

I have no problem with a conservative who’s willing to accept that statement...but far too few self-styled conservatives are so willing. It might threaten their campaigns against drugs, sodomy, or abortion. It might make it difficult to fund their next military expedition! Can’t have that.

Small wonder conservative commentators so frequently slather contempt upon libertarians and libertarianism. They usually know, in their heart of hearts, that their positions contain quite a lot of contradiction, and they’d rather not have us point it out...especially when the powers and perquisites of high office are at stake.

ADDENDUM: Don't bother to comment if you can't do so without insulting me. Don't bother if you can't grasp why unenforceable laws are a bad idea. And especially don't bother if you think agents of the State should have the privilege of breaking laws that bind the rest of us. As I've said more than once, I'll entertain intelligent arguments only. Either play at my level or play with yourself...a practice I'm told has its devotees.

(Cross-posted at League of Outlaw Bloggers.)

Monday, September 15, 2014

The Americans Versus The Anti-Americans

There's been quite a lot of attention on the ruinous failures of Obamunist "foreign policy," insofar as The Won can be said to have a foreign policy that goes beyond "whatever will support my sagging poll numbers." It's hard to fault the majority of commentators for that focus, for beyond our shores blood is being spilled in great quantities, usually because Islam, the totalitarian ideology that masquerades as a religion, is on the march in the face of Western (especially American) lack of resolve. But the barbarians of other lands should not completely absorb our attentions; there are barbarians in this land as well, and they, too, are on the march.

Hearken to Kevin Williamson about one such front:

Consider that the same Texas prosecutor that has indicted Governor Rick Perry on two felony counts for the so-called crime of exercising his constitutional authority to veto a bill — a bill providing funds to that prosecutor’s office — is now preparing to indict University of Texas regent and whistleblower Wallace Hall, on charges of . . . hmm.

The charges against Mr. Hall are odd even by the standards of Rosemary Lehmberg, the vodka-pickled Texas prosecutor whose videotaped tirade after a DUI arrest — she threatened to have sheriff’s deputies jailed if she was not given special treatment — led to Governor Perry’s veto of funds for her office, on the theory that he could not in good conscience sign off on funding for an agency under such non-credible leadership. Mr. Hall is accused of leaking private information regarding academic records; short of that, prosecutors want to charge Mr. Hall with the crime of leading people to “speculate” about certain information protected by privacy rules. For the record, I should note that, though I never have spoken to the man, the party to whom Mr. Hall is accused of leaking information and whose speculation he is accused of encouraging . . . is me.

The point of such a legal initiative is not to obtain a conviction. Such cases are never won in court. As Williamson points out, the objective is to silence the target -- and in that effort, the prosecution usually succeeds.

Wallace Hall's "crime" is that he resisted the efforts of Jim Pitts (R), the chairman of the Appropriations committee of the Texas House of Representatives, to force his underqualified son into the University of Texas law school. Pitts succeeded in gaining admission to the law school for his son, but apparently his resentment of Hall's resistance was not slaked by victory. So he leaned on a convenient prosecutor -- Travis County's Rosemary Lehmberg, the "vodka-pickled Democrat" whose fury over having Rick Perry demand her resignation for her execrable public behavior incited her to have him indicted -- to put the screws to Regent Hall, who was already reviled by the power elite of Texas academia as a "whistleblower."

This is the exact reverse of justice -- and no system, however constituted, that tolerates such infamy has any right to call itself a "justice system."


On swallow doth not a summer make, nor does one abusive prosecution completely condemn a justice system...but the indictments of Rick Perry, Tom Delay and Kay Bailey Hutchison, the latter two of which were thrown out of court as without merit, emerged from that same system and were aimed at the same outcome. Travis County, the district that contains Texas's capital city of Austin, apparently elevates such unscrupulous prosecutors as Ronnie Earle and Rosemary Lehmberg without a qualm.

It matters little that Jim Pitts, apparently the moving force behind the attempt to prosecute Wallace Hall, is a Republican. Venality, peculation, and partisan abuse of office are rife in both parties. But Pitts could not secure an indictment of Hall on his own; he had to have the cooperation of a prosecutor: Democrat Rosemary Lehmberg. So here at last, in this unusually acrimonious time in American public discourse, we have a visible case of members of two "opposed" parties "reaching across the aisle" and "working together."

I consider this substantiation for my contention that we don't have a real "two-party system." The parties have a common aim -- maintaining and extending their respective grips on power -- that overrides any differences on public policy. Indeed, each finds the other more useful than not:

  • As an obstruction: "We tried, but the other side thwarted us."
  • As a whipping boy: "America's problems are their fault!"
  • As a bogeyman: "Vote for us or you'll get them!"

After all, a political party must have opponents to be meaningful. The Soviets didn't make voting compulsory because it was too popular.


No matter who you vote for, the government gets elected -- from a lapel button

Elections have come to matter less and less as time has passed. Policy changes have become feather-light; hardly any have had the sort of dramatic "main effect" the proponents thereof have promised. Even the ascension of the hard-left Obama contingent has resulted only in a moderate acceleration of our drive toward the Total State.

One of the reasons the establishments of both parties give lip service to the memory and legacy of Ronald Reagan is to conceal their resentment of this unabashedly American, patriotic, and public-spirited president. Reagan aimed to upset quite a number of applecarts on both sides of the political divide. During his tenure in the White House, the Republican power brokers strove to surround him with "advisors" and "counselors" who would mitigate his natural conservatism, especially about federal spending and fiscal matters. The Democrats, of course, never ceased to paint him as the enemy of all that's right and good. Together, they blunted all but the most popular Reaganite initiatives, such that his legacy is far less than it might have been were the GOP truly based on conservative American principles.

In this connection, it's worth revisiting the dictionary definition of conservative:

conservative a: Tending or disposed to maintain existing institutions; opposed to change or innovation.

Alternately:

conservative n: One who desires to maintain existing institutions and customs

Perhaps we should be a bit more vocal about what we'd like the word conservative to mean, rather than what it seems to mean at present. Or perhaps we should settle on another word. In either case, given the current operational definition, we've got as "conservative" a ruling elite as we can endure -- with anti-Americans, at least in orientation and guiding sentiment, holding the reins.