Topic: Political Parties
Statism : The only option you're being given A FAQ about statism, and why this election is pretty much all statist already.by Logical Premise
(Statist)
Friday, February 1, 2008
When the word Statist or Statism is thrown around, most people don't get the meaning. After all, the ideology in this country is mostly centered around Democrat and Republican, liberal or conservative, left or right. Statism and Libertarianism are somehow perceived as "fringe" positions, with statists written off as big-government crooks and libertarians as hippy militiamen.
Obviously, every one of these positions is patiently false. The core values of the Democratic Party were basically "statist-liberal" and the Republican Party "libertarian-conservative". The order is important, here, and thus we need to discuss what Statism means as it pertains to the parties.
Why is it important? Because right now, more than any other time in this country, every candidate (except Ron Paul) and every party is basically statist in it's outlook. If you aren't a libertarian and you wonder why they are so angry, wrought up, and emotional, that's why.
So, let us begin:
Q: How was the country originally founded? What was its orientation?
A: The US was originally founded as a libertarian country. Anyone who denies this much is pretty much in historical denial. The Federalists were statists to a certain degree, but even Alexander Hamilton did not approve of "too much government". The idea of "liberalism" back then meant something totally different than it did today. A better way to look at it was that everyone was a libertarian back then, and the only differences were if you were a strong libertarian or a weak one.
Q: If the country was originally Libertarian, how and why did it change?
A: The realities of history and demographics forced it to do so. A small country of coastal states, linked through a simplistic road system and bordered by mountains, had no need of a strong federal government. The move to Statism occurred mostly in financial areas, with the founding of a central bank, tariff controls, and more importantly, increasing trade. The government had to expand rapidly, however, as the size of the US and the level of technology continued to expand at a pace unexpected.
Even so, the argument could be made as late as the 1920's that the country was mostly Libertarian. It made the strongest moves possible to Statism during the Great Depression, in centralizing power, in enhancing the power of the Federal Reserve, in the Public Words Administration and the TVA, and even more so during World War II. The grasp of power by Roosevelt, including interning American citizens of German and Japanese birth, censorship, economic controls, rationing, and the like brought with it unimagined levels of power and control to the Federal Government.
Q: Why did we not go back to a libertarian style of living, then, after the War?
A: Because things were good in the 50's. Quite simply, that is what I believe the truth to be. In the 50's and 60' and even the early 70's, the size of government was not necessarily seen as a problem. Rather, the government was seen as the only answer to economic woes, to political collapses, to civil unrest, racial tensions, and an utterly amoral and destructive counter-culture movement which tore the moral framework of this country to bits and embraced every form of degeneracy heretofore kept under public view by simple decency.
Conservatives began to spend more and more time fighting the moral decay of the country and, with the burgeoning Cold War, the military grew, and a strong government was seen as a good thing. Thus, statist power continued to grow unchecked -- the McCarthy hearings, the blacklisting of Hollywood actors and writers, the persecution of people for political beliefs, the outrages of Hoover's FBI.? . . These were simply not stood up to effectively.
The final nail in the Libertarian coffin, though, was very simply the rise of the megacorporation. A true military-industrial complex, combined with the consumer mentality and the flooding of the entertainment sphere with personal entertainment like never before, became the opiate of the masses.
Q: And then Reagan came along, wasn't he for small government?
A: If you actually think Reagan was for small government you are living in a fantasy world populated by the naive. This is when the Statist movement began to split.
Liberal Statism emerged as the Welfare State: a place where everyone was equal, where the poor were supported, everyone could go to college, political correctness was required, the poor of the world needed our support, and the government was our only answer.
Conservative Statism became the neocon movement in nascent form, with us as the World's Policeman, the shield of the weak, where government had to regulate morality and society, where a strong military was required, where taxes were cut and some programs reduced but pork spending skyrocketed.
Q: So what about the core values of the Republican Party? They say they want smaller government, don't they?
A: I'm sorry, but the profanity is required -- bullshit. The Republican Party is for smaller government the way people are about prisons -- they think it's a good idea as long as it doesn't affect them personally.
When a Republican says "smaller government' he means "get rid of welfare, affirmative action, entitlement programs, public art, education programs, and anything that empowers liberalism". A Republican has no need to cut government spending -- haven't you realized this by washing Bush I, Bush II, and most Republican congressmen?
Republicans are about dictating what they think is right, both to you as citizens and to the world abroad, under the Great Paternalistic Shield of Uncle Sam. They like big business to labor under as little government regulation as possible, but they certainly won't try to get rid of government bureaucracy.
Q: And the Democrats?
A: Do I even have to belabor the obvious? Of course they aren't for smaller government. It's the same thing, they'd reduce government that they don't like, and expand it everywhere else.?To be fair -- Republicans would have a SMALLER government than Democrats. It's akin, however, to suggesting that instead of being forced to carry an elephant on your back, you just have to carry a rhinoceros.
Q: So, both parties are basically Statists right now, is what you are saying.
A: Indeed they are. Republicans see big government as a way to enhance corporate power, bigger profits, expand our military, and engage in neoconservative empire building, in a new demi-colonial model where we basically conquer with corporate power backed up with the fist of our military. They see government as preventing gays from living openly, keeping illegals out, and making sure that minorities don't change the nations' values very much. They don't have a problem with big government as long as taxes are lower than under a Democratic reign and as long as the pork keeps rolling back into their states in the form of businesses, military bases, and defense spending.
Democrats want to legislate morality, and use the government to force acceptance of everything they hold dear, including affirmative action, egalitarianism and leveling of wealth, safety nets and welfare backing of the poor, disestablishment of corporate power to a more socialist model and, of course, challenging God in every public venue.
Q: You seem to be making a strong case for Ron Paul here, if I don't believe in all that.
A: Maybe you think so. I'm not here to argue the ins and outs of Libertarianism, really. I don't worry about it because it doesn't work; it never has and never will because power is not water. It does not flow downhill; it flows to the point of most attraction. Centralized government power in statist form will always be EASIER to implement, more REACTIVE to external threats, more IMPRESSIVE in it's long lasting achievements, and most of all, doesn't require THINKING or PASSION from it's citizens. To suggest that going back to a model of government that appeals to 15% of the country on it's ideals when 60% of the country doesn't care and 25% of the country makes it's LIVING and is in POWER due to big government is , well, denying reality.
That being said, and taking into account my own beliefs, the main issue in this campaign isn't about liberalism or conservatism. Those two things have been corrupted. Liberals don't care about the poor, they don't care about minorities, they don't care about the environment, they simply want to lecture someone, they want to feel as if they are "making a difference" so that when they go home, they can say "we did this", and to them, a big government is a tool that will make that happen.
Conservatives want things to be like they "used to be", with a strong patriotic America, but they certainly don't really CARE about a smaller government, they don't care about controlling spending, and I'm not 100% sure the evangelical branch even cares about the message of Jesus they are supposed to be spreading. They simply want to have things stay the way they are and pretend that globalism and the American Dream have fundamentally changed.
There isn't a good way to get to liberal values without being a statist, really. People aren't going to accept change easily until it's forced on them. Civil rights in this country for minorities went nowhere until the government mandated it. Worker's rights, the same. Environmentalism, the same. And so on. Liberalism really requires big government.
Liberal-leaning libertarians are big on the power of private enterprise, and common decency, and point to the abolitionist movement, and grassroots organization of gay rights groups and the like . . . but these were only the impetus to make the government act, and without the power of a large government, nothing would have changed.
As for conservatives, I think they simply lost there way in the bared might of power they had gathered. It began to make more sense for them to use government to simply push the things they believed in than in hoping smaller government would bring those changes about.
You can quote any number of natural philosophers you like, or go on about the innate values of liberty and justice, but we aren't talking about the possibility of man, or the enlightened man, we're talking about the American, the guy who couldn't find China or Zimbabwe on a map, the woman who spends more time on shoes than on spreading the word of God, the family that lets the public schools and TV and popular culture raise their children then wonders why the kids are having sex at 14.
It's easier for conservatives to have a big government supporting charter schools and faith based initiatives and cracking down on gay marriage and (if you're a neocon) spreading "democracy" than it is to hope in the innate "goodness" of people.
Libertarians are, of course, upset and angry and frustrated. They see big government not simply as unfair taxes and wasted money but as a moral and physical danger. They blame every ill of society on big government and the actions it makes, regardless of any good it has done, regardless of the things it's achieved, and regardless of the cost to our society that a small-government mentality would entail.
Perhaps the greatest irony is that all a statist has to do is sit back and enjoy the ride. I could vote McCain, Romney, Obama, or Hillary -- I've got a good solid statist in all four of them. Ironically, even Dr. Paul, should he win, is going to have to use the very system he despises to get any of his ideas to work.
Statism is the idea that the power of government, and its goals, trump all other concerns. In many ways none of the parties or their candidates are statist. But they ends they pursue are irrelevant compared to the size of the machine they use to do their bidding, and in the end, that leads to the final question:
Q: Is Statism even a political position, then??
A: Not really. A pure statist is just a centrist who believes in big government. When the properly elected government, with the representatives honestly and openly elected are good representations of the values the people who elected them, acts in a manner that is transparent and for the good of the nation, the flavor such action takes is not relevant.
There are good liberal ideas, there are good conservative ideas. A statist can lean either way, but in his or her mind, the most important thing is that we have a strong government to protect our freedom, to defend us from harm, to legislate corporate power, to ensure our freedom of speech and religion while preventing the oppression of minorities, to enhance the moral fiber of the nation while allowing people to live their lives as they see fit, and to make this country the greatest on Earth based on what we are NOW, not what we originally were.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 10 thumbs so far
2008 Logical Premise, all rights reserved.
Published: Friday, February 1, 2008
Last modified: Friday, February 1, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Logical Premise only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Logical Premise is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-02-01 11:07:23
Overall, not a bad presentation. I might quibble with a few of the things you've said in your overview, but much of it is correct.
You wrote: "Centralized government power in statist form will always be EASIER to implement, more REACTIVE to external threats, more IMPRESSIVE in it's long lasting achievements, and most of all, doesn't require THINKING or PASSION from it's citizens." This is all true, but what's really interesting is why you wrote it. You were justifying your claim that libertarianism doesn't work. You were saying that it doesn't work because power runs downhill, that the whole thing is about acquiring power. Again, your description is true.
What's missing is why you believe that this is all a good thing. It's clearly your position, yet you merely accept it as a given rather than as something that requires evaluation.
The fact is that all of what you are describing is a bad thing. It is bad for the people. It is bad for America. Your justification for all this is that people keep asking for it.
I suppose that on my most angry and frustrated days, that's the way I feel. I get angry that Americans have repeatedly sold out their greatest virtues for what's easy and doesn't require thought, but there's one point where you're really wrong. That's where you cite your claim that big government is, "more IMPRESSIVE in it's long lasting achievements." What might those accomplishments be? I have a fair idea of what they are, and if we were to look closer we would find that these so-called accomplishments are actually humongous embarrassments with devastating (and often deliberately hidden) consequences that have made us worse off, not better off.
I cannot , for the life of me, figure out exactly what Libertarians expect people to feel. You said, "The fact is that all of what you are describing is a bad thing. It is bad for the people. It is bad for America. Your justification for all this is that people keep asking for it. " A democracy, a republic, a democratic republic, whatever -- is supposed be by the people, for the people. If the people ask for it -- repeatedly, over and over again, no matter how much you shout at them they are wrong -- democracy says that's what they should get.
You seem to think your ideals are more important than what the people clearly want, and yet your ideals are supposed to be all about the will of the people. This is why Libertarianism has failed, will fail, and will always fail. It succeeds brilliantly when the people don't want what is given to them. But when the people want what they have, and just want minor adjustments, all too often the Libertarian answer, very simply, isn't what the people want. And Libertarians sit there and proclaim loudly that the people don't have enough sense to know what's good for them, that they've sold out or they don't think. And then you're basically saying what statists have all along.
As for achievements, I speak of the things that made the human race great. I speak of man walking on the moon, on the destruction of the Soviet Union, on civil rights being made a real issue to the point where a black man and a woman can run as president (no matter how flawed they are). I speak of my forefathers in WW I and WW II, I speak of the men who have bled and died all over the world because they thought what they did was right.
I don't speak of welfare, that's not an achievement, nor is Social Security or affirmative action. Those are byproducts, patches made by government to fix human failings. I speak of the unity of a people guided by a powerful government that is actually the voice of all mankind, all men, all women, all races, all religions. I don't ever hesitate to say that and take PRIDE in what the US has achieved. Every turning away from the world that Libertarians preach, every denial of a need of government to control the excesses of human ignorance and corporate greed and the monsters that pass for rulers of poor nations, the nativism that underlies some of the spouting about immigration and the railing against mutlticulturalism, it does not RAISE this country, it does not make us proud, or our spirits soar?
We love liberty because it was denied to us by a King and a pack of nobles, where our very lives were as dirt, and you conflate that to the issues that face this nation with poor money policy and a neocon president that acted too hastily?
I respect you, as I respect several other Libertarian authors on this site, as well as Dr. Paul. But I cannot, will not, and will never admit that government is "bad" when most of the good in the world and in this country came from that power, and most of the repression and failure came from people that took your very noble and pure ideals and twisted them with nativism, racism, and greed to ensure that all that mattered was the self.
If the People want a strong central goverment, then you should be working to make that strong government fair, to make it transparent, to make it open. If they "sell out" their privacy and let the government regulate their lives you people should be working to make sure it's done evenly, to protect us, to prevent unscruplous politicans for twisting it to their own ends.
It is sickening to see your party's passion, intellect, and clear motivation wasted on something that will never see fruition and if it DID would be against the will of the very people you claim to champion. I, too, am passionate, you see. I think Dr. Paul is a good man, but that there are many who will use his aims to achieve great evil, and it will be a greater evil than merely high taxes or illegal immigrants.
I accept it as a given, because it is what has happened. To evaluate it is akin to evaluating greed, or dishonesty -- they are regretful to many, but they transpire nonetheless.
So basically you're saying that the system is set and there is no use in trying to change it. So I'm just suppose to jump off of the cliff? I don't think so, now is the time to start fighting against all of this bs. We, as Americans need to make a change and do it right now or our children will end up in a country we don't recognize. Do it for them, think about their future.
Posted By: Ivan from Oregon
Date: 2008-02-01 12:22:56
Logical, for once I agree with most of what you say. Ultimately we have the kind of government we deserve. I don't know if your guess of 15% really caring is right, but I'm afraid that your guess of 25% deriving their living from government is very understated. Today, more people work for government (at all levels) than work in manufacturing. If you add to that a realistic look at other government-related business, I'm afraid it has taken us past the point of no return in many ways. These kind of businesses, such as tax-preparation, litigation, consultation as to comply with ever increasing regulation, add nothing to the productive economy. The so-called service sector of the economy is not all government related, but I would argue that we'll not get rich doing each other's laundry. I would also argue that most of our war industry is non-productive in terms of enhancing our individual well-being. Having a strong and up-to-date military is a good thing, waging aggressive war is not, and the bonanza this gives to the Haliburton's and Dow Chemical's doesn't benefit the average citizen.
Your 60% estimate of the "zombies" is probably understated. Whether they care or not, most of the population has now been brainwashed that we have a "democracy", not realizing that democracy is two wolves and a sheep discussing what to have for lunch.
Statism can work, but requires a benevolent, intelligent king or dictator that is not beholden to the powers that want to use government to enhance their power. A big problem of effectively implementing statist structure is that bureaucracies are collectively very stupid and don't ever implement the function intended. Now we come (finally) to the point of my argument.
The basis for our government, as spelled out in the constitution, if properly implemented, requires honest money and subsidiarity (implementing a function at the lowest level of government as possible). The first priciple of honest money was violated in the first presidency (Washington) by the establishment of a Central bank. This was briefly stopped by Jackson who refused to renew its charter. Various back and forth on this issue spurred strong resistance by the fascists, including attempted and actual assasinations, until the final blow in 1913. The second principle, subsidiarity, was destroyed by a Roosevelt-stacked Supreme Court which, in in 1936 ruled in its decision regarding the "Agricultural Adjustment Act", that Congress can spend money on whatever it pleases, never mind what the Constitution says.
It's not a surprise that our "representatives" have no incentive to fix the system that is rapidly heading us toward the Global Plantation, because they view themselves as part of the Elite that will be the Overseers of the rest of us Slaves. Most of them are naive enough to not realize that they, too are "throw-aways" to the People running the show. To paraphrase a quote from Baron de Rothschilds, "Give me control of a Nation's money, then I care not a whit about its laws." That's why Ron Paul is trying to tell everyone that nothing will really change until we fix the money system.
I agree with the author in that most Americans are obviously in favor of big government and vote accordingly. I believe it is because big government enables wealth redistribution on a massive scale, whether it be to private individuals or corporations looking for subsidies. Until the American people start favoring self-reliance again, we will continue to see government grow.
However, it should be noted that "the things that made the human race great" (from the author's additional comment) is largely a matter of very subjective opinion. Spending billions of dollars on NASA while running annual budget deficits is shameful at best. If someone wants to send multi-billion dollar satellites to other planets out of scientific curiosity, let him fund it with his own money rather than that of the common taxpayer. Furthermore, the United States government cannot take full credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union as its own misguided, socialist policies probably did more damage to it than the US ever did.
"I speak of the unity of a people guided by a powerful government that is actually the voice of all mankind, all men, all women, all races, all religions."
In the above quote from the Comments section, it sounds like the author is raising government to a position of veneration, and I find that quite alarming. The government can never be true unifier, because try unity must be absolutely voluntary while government is all about force and coercion; that is why enforcers of the State carry guns and tasers rather than bouquets of flowers. I suggest that the author spend some time reading about the innumerable abuses by the State on other web sites before romanticizing it to such an unwarranted degree.
I cannot find any major fault in your article, but your opinions that support it within the replies are certainly biased by your support for statism.
As you said, FDR seized the reins of power and drove this country to where he wanted it. While we were fighting the excesses of evil Nazi statism overseas, a soft statism crept into our school houses, pulpits, and state offices. Simply because it has gained power does not mean that people can not see that statism has negative consequences. They simply make the mistake of thinking their statist goals do not in fact support the statist goals of others. If given exposure to the ideals of libertarianism (and most are never given that exposure) many people do in fact recognize their inherent value in self determination and in NOT supporting things that they find abominable. While we taught the values of liberty in our schoolhouses statists found little traction. But when we failed to prevent the indoctrination of our youth, statism began its long slow climb. eventually it will overreach itself and be cast off.
You said that the current affairs of our country are what people want, but thats not what I hear when I talk to people. They all complain about one aspect or another of statist government, they simply fail to recognize that it is one part of the whole. Yes, most of the country is disinterested, such are the ways of man. We carry the burden until it becomes intolerable, and then we cast it off. It is simply not intolerable to most yet.
Statist power will always gather more power unto itself. Those with an agenda will always attempt to take the reins of that power and use it for their purposes, they overreach in their power and destroy their tools of power or the slumber of the people. Eventually those purposes are destructive of the needs of the people. Eventually those people decide to cast it off. It is an inevitability.
As for the achievements of Statism I have to disagree. Soon we will have private space flight, yes Statism put us on the moon, but free enterprise and the desire for independence will colonize it. The same as it did here. You can't really say the enterprising people who push us into the next step of the spaceage couldn't have done it without statist government; unless you can also look back and see that statist government couldn't have gone to the moon without the enterprising people who pioneered and made terrestrial flight feasible. The Wright brothers had a dream, something statism tends to lack or destroy.
As for the defeat of the USSR, I would say that was in fact a defeat of statism, and it was not from the power of American statism, but from their inherent desire to overreach themselves. The USSR broke their financial back on the freedom lovers of Afghanistan. If the neo-cons continue down their path the Afghanis and Iraqis will financially break the backs of our statists. Others here will simply stop contributing to the statist causes, or choose to work directly against them. Did not the American colonists contribute to breaking the back of the British statists?
A statist government is inherently unfair. It makes its living like a leach off of the people. So long as the people find a symbiotic relationship with the state they can tolerate it, but eventually the state becomes destructive of thier needs. I believe we are entering the next phase of that destruction of our needs today. So long as we have the freedom to speak out about it, we will be able to spread the ideals which will eventually counter it. And once the state tries to squelch those ideals, or our natural rights, it will only be a matter of time until we shake them off.
The state cannot rule without our consent, and they will always push us to the point that we no longer will consent. Today the majority do not see a need to refuse that consent, but as the state overreaches itself, many more will begin to do so. In the meantime libertarians will educate people about why we are going off course, about why our liberties are being destroyed, and about why things will eventually have to change. Perhaps next time the cycle begins people will be a little more guarded of their rights, perhaps not. But the arguments against statism grow stronger with every cycle, whereas the arguments of laziness of the people and better more benevolent rule by the elite seem to lose their shine. A little over 200 years ago we had a monumental success for libertarian views, we populated a whole country with it. And our success invited much of the world to develop their own forms of democracy. The cycle has turned, and statism has and is growing in power, but perhaps libertarian teachings can put it in check this time before it becomes destructive of our needs, at leas that is the goal of the rEVOLution.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Logical Premise, all rights reserved.