Slouching Leftward in America

I don't think altruism is the problem, I think it is altruism at the federal level. This is the problem with our conservative argument. We let people smear us for being greedy, and we come back with "self-responsibility". This, of course, is true. We believe that self-responsibility is the price for freedom. But we are altruistic as well. We give to churches, we give to fellowships we belong to, we give to charities. We just don't want to give it to a vast bureaucracy that has, shall we say, a vast overhead, and no competition or accountability!

Its good to know that others are thinking about the problems with the conservative argument. I have visited your blog -- welcome to the blogsphere! Hope that you will visit here often and post your comments ..

The distinction between personal altruism and bureaucratic altruism is simply a matter of degree. Our personal convictions (often derived through our religious beliefs) make one a virtue but make the other anathema.

Why is that? Because we define bureaucratic altruism as theft -- and I don't disagree with that characterization. However, it points to the subjectivity of our moral code.

The bigger problem is that because we consider altruism an unlimited virtue, we cannot offer an adequate moral criticism against altruism that is bureaucratically mandated. And that reduces our ability to counter new policies that claim to be altruistic (e.g. Universal Health Care).

I hope that is helpful?

At what point will our government be considered (by the people) as too far gone to salvage? I have tried over the years not to take a fatalistic attitude towards the US, but it is almost impossible for me to shake that view, especially in light of somewhat recent events (like politicians ignoring much of the populace to further their own power grab, like the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill).

While I expect this from the two Senators, I've noticed that there's few loud voices against this thing. Are the Republicans cowering in feat, hoping not to be noticed to save their careers?

I don't know about you, but cowardice is not a virtue, and I do not support any politician who will make the wrong decision to save their skins.

I don't know if you have the time to read very much, but I suggest you read Orson Scott Card's "Empire". It's a immediate-future story about a President being assassinated and the nation dividing along political lines into a civil war. You'd probably have to read it before answering my question, but do you think that the United States is on the brink of conflict with itself over political differences? By conflict, I don't mean verbal debate...

Thanks,
Red

I'll add "Empire" to my reading list - it sounds like an interesting book.

My opinion about any potential conflict(before reading the book): there is enough 'inertia' in the system to keep us going for a while. An overtaxed but apathetic electorate serves, in a backhandedly positive way, to increase the inertia and allow the power-grabbers to continue with business-as-usual.

The American Public (whatever that means) is more likely to take to the streets on 'social' issues than more consequential economic issues. Even when we react to political developments such as the Iraq war, it tends to be in the nature of cheering for (or against) the home team.

That said, there seems to be a level of 'polarization' in our politics that is much higher than ever before. So, yes, it is possible that some group could take advantage of the heightened polarization and precipitate a crisis.

A greater likelihood, however, is that instead of a 'bang', we will get a 'whimper'. Or, a series of whimpers, over many decades until our economic power is marginalized.

There are those who think that America is unique because of - pick any one of the following - religion, natural resources, history, language, culture. In fact, most of those qualities exist in other, less successful countries - America has 'borrowed' many aspects of those from the Old World.

The greatness of America is based on CAPITALISM, which is the only economic model that is consistent with the proclivities of human beings and ensures the best utilization of scarce resources (material and human).

As we chip away at that successful model with every passing decade, we facilitate our own decline from shining greatness to dull-grey mediocrity.

In general, I must disagree that the main reason that socialist ideas gain raction is the embrace of altruistic sacrifice. More often than not, the embrace of socialism (even by any number of socialists that have neither religious convictions or any desire to sacrifice on their own) is embodied by the embrace of the "free lunch syndrome" - the belief that governmental charity doesnt cost them anything or costs only the "greedy" and the "rich". Thus, I would argue that an attack on religion inspired altruism would not, by itself, turn us from the road to serfdom on which we have societally embarked.

BUT...

I must concede that the demand for governmental involvement in the name of religion based altruism IS a real phenomenon and worthy of note.

An exchange that I had in the wake of Katrina with regard to "price gouging" is particularly on point. I had argued, as had Stossel in the column that birthed the thread, that "price gouging" was impossible - that the free exchange of goods (in the example it was generators) at WHATEVER price is mutually agreed upon by buyer and seller was not only optimal but inherently the moral condition because a) there was no coersion and b) both parties benefited. Had the sales taken place (the seller was arrested), in each case the buyer would have gotten more value - perhaps saving everything in his freezer - than the money with which he was willing to part. He responded that "taking advantage" of those who had been harmed by an act of nature was inherently immoral and my take (and Stossel's) was a blot on conservatism.

Keep up the good fight... and I'll keep hounding the liberals.

* the 'free lunch syndrome' as you describe it explains the role of the beneficiaries (I call them the parasites) of Govt largesse.

* obviously, most 'parasites' don't spend a lot of time thinking about the immorality of their actions. However, if any of them felt the slightest twinge of moral compunction, it could be easily assuaged by using the 'glory of victimhood' that is encouraged by some of the tenets of organized religion

* But, how do you explain the acquiescence of the producers (victims)? Why would they sign onto a 'free lunch plan' with themselves as the entrée?

* without the acquiescence (tacit or otherwise) of the producers, there would be no loot for the Govt to give away.

* politicians of both sides (but more often the Leftists) understand that they can benefit BOTH from the 'free lunch syndrome' of the parasites and the guilt of the producers. It's a double win for them - encourage victimhood by means of the funds extorted from guilt-ridden producers; collect votes from both sides!

* many of the 'producers' have a moral code that was based on the virtues of sacrifice, altruism & charity. As a result, they are susceptible to politicians who subvert the producers' moral code - forcing them to accept an unearned guilt.


* many who disagree with my points make a lot out of the 'voluntary' aspect of charity vs. the confiscatory aspect of Socialism. They suggest that it makes all the difference in the world - and maybe they have a point in some spiritual context! But it does pre-condition us to accept the premise that producers exist for the sake of non-producers.

* once it is accepted that producers exist for the sake of their parasites, the rest are just mechanical details! Whether a

-- pastor in my Church suggests that the 'haves' voluntarily help out the 'have-nots'

--OR--

-- a compassionate politician suggests that people voluntarily accept a 're-distributive' economic policy, the effect is the same.

I think you are overestimating the intelligence of the masses. While individuals are smart, much of the population is inattentive, apathetic or just plain dumb. And even many who are not simply feel helpless. The "free lunch syndrome" also explains the acquiescence of many of the victims who either cannot grasp that they ARE the victims or are operating under the delusion that they benefit of other things that are received outweigh the ones that they are being soaked for.

Consider, for example, the bridge to nowhere in Alaska. Essentially no one (outside of Alaska) had any interest in paying for that particular boondoggle. The argument that kept that bit of pork was that, if Alaska's goodies get whacked, YOUR goodies get whacked. The public is acting in what it perceives are its own best interests - preserving its own goodies, but the compilicity of apathy, ignorance and liberalism (this last being somewhat redundant) fails to grasp that the perception is completely wrong because the costs of allowing all of that pork for others FAR outweighs any benefit received.

Further, I must disagree that private charity must embrace the pre-condition that "producers exist for the sake of non-producers". I, for example, have been involved in youth programs (scouting, youth sports programs, etc.) for decades. The activity is considered bolunteerism but the reality is that I greatly enjoyed my stints as Cubmaster and coach and even umpire (I can tune people out when I wish). There is a free market place for private charity that primarily addresses short-term need (without fostering dependancy) or taking care of those truly incapable of taking care of themselves - a true minority - with a real (albeit largely emotional) benefit to the giver.

And I flatly do not believe in the existence of the "compassionate politician". Politicians ALSO act in what they perceive to be their own self interests (being human beings ... well, most of 'em, anyway) and their primary interest is career preservation.

While I concede the point (obviously) that charitable largesse can and, in our current society, frequently DOES, harm the recipient - fostering dependancy and undermining self-sufficiency - I reject the objectivist view that it does so inherently. The problem (at least one of them) is that government is incapable of making the distinction and thus inevitably creates a growing entrenched underclass by engaging in such activities. Individuals and private charities can make the same mistake but they are far less likely to do so because the incentives exist (as they do not in government) to funnel resources to where they will be most effective.

So, I would argue that the effect is NOT (necessarily) the same when charity is extorted by government as opposed to exhorted by clergy.

.. the concepts of volunteerism and private charity. I happen to engage in both personally (the details of which are superfluous in this context).

My effort has been to identify the cause(s) of our predisposition to Socialism.

*Why is it that we Americans are conditioned to look down on the SOURCE of our affluence and fall for the double-fraud of socialism? Note: it is a DOUBLE-fraud because we have to pretend that (a) it is the ideal condition of man to live for others (b) we consistently (and willingly) practice the above 'ideal'

* Why is Bill Gates hated for his well-earned wealth, but praised for his philanthropy? The reality is that he has 'given' so much more to the world while 'selfishly' pursuing his self-interest!

* Why do we conservatives have difficulty in expressing our principles in terms of self-interest?

* Why do the synonyms for self-interest almost always have negative connotations in our culture? BTW, I like the section sub-titled "Self-interest vs Greed" of your post "Is Socialism Against Human Nature" at http://fletchforfreedom.townhall.com/g/dd49dec9-38e8-493a-a005-7803230511a5

Most conservatives would agree that when the 'germ' of altruism crosses over from the voluntary/personal space to the coercive/public space, it metastasizes into Socialism.

In fact, that is what I mean by the Trojan Horse. Many of our 'good' values derive from religion, and can cross the private/public boundary without a problem. But the 'altruism' germ cannot be extrapolated across that boundary without becoming malignant!

If we identify these boundaries unequivocally, there is hope that conservatives will be regain the idealogical higher ground, adding strength to the pragmatic defense of their positions against Socialism.

It should not be the stated goal of the state or the country to provide any of the following for it's citizens:

* Health Care
* Education
* Food, clothing or shelter

However, private individuals may freely (and voluntarily) choose to provide any of the above to the 'have-nots'.

Conservative leaders however, often voice platitudes such as 'the RIGHT to Education'. In doing so, they are playing from the Socialist book.

It is no surprise that they are soundly beaten (in the give-away game), because Socialists are willing to give away 'the shirt off OUR backs' to win power.

It is time to put an idealogical SELF-INTEREST backbone into the backs of conservative positions.

VOR, I'll grant your basic premise that religion (and Christianity in particular) has aided the formation of socialist policies, or at least of getting people to accept them. However, I think that this is due to a fundamental flaw and misreading of the Bible.

Basically:
God gave us free will.
Socialism aims to take that away.
Therefore, socialism is evil!

Being fairly religious (that darn Baptist upbring must have taken somewhere), I had a real problem with the libertarian philosophy for a long time because I could see no moral founding in it. Now I think I have. Oddly enough, I came to this thought process while reading Ayn Rand. Her rants against religion were too much for me to take, and I searched my mind for a counter argument. This is the best that my feeble mind could come up with, but I think it holds true.
This also applies to the religious right, by the way. Any government policy that aims to take away a persons free will (before he takes away someone else’s. This does not preclude punishment.) is inherently evil, by this measure.

Thanks for visiting and for your comments. Please feel free to visit often and add to the dialog.

I think that you have understood the gist of my position on this topic. I am not anti-religion, but I think that it is important to understand the effect that our religious beliefs can have on the American Public's acceptance of certain aspects of Socialism.

Since 91% of our population subscribes to religion, it would be foolish to ignore the fact that there are religious people on both sides of the political spectrum. Many conservatives dismiss ALL leftists as "godless commies", as though the all leftists are the hardcore ACLU-types.

My contention is that for every one of those 'secular leftists' there are many more who lean towards the 'progressive' side of the spectrum due to a seemingly logical but misguided application of religion-inspired altruism.

No doubt there are also those who deliberately take advantage of this grayness in our moral code. Whether they happen to be parasitic recipients who live off their productive neighbors - or the politicians who pose as modern day Robin Hoods - their nature cannot be revealed until we identify the weakness in our own political/moral code.

Conservatives who fail to grasp this have a limited understanding of what predisposes many decent people towards the left.

This is in response to Redhead's previous post (see above):

We are given free will, and simultaneously told about the unlimited virtues of selflessness and sacrifice.

That sets us up for a contradiction, which is usually resolved by saying that "we should be selfless by our own volitional choice, otherwise it doesn't count".

That, unfortunately, is the first step towards accepting a philosophy of self-sacrifice.

Socialism's biggest victory (albeit a Pyrrhic one) has been the voluntary acceptance of the PRODUCERS that they should live for the sake of their PARASITES.

In America, many hardworking people who are NOT of the looter/moocher persuasion routinely vote for entitlements, or for politicians who support ever expanding programs such as Universal Health Care, Public Education and Welfare.

Those benevolent souls are convinced that they are 'doing the right thing' and 'levelling the playing field' by their charity - hey, if it's voluntary then it must be a good, charitable impulse, and who are we to argue? In fact, they would argue that it is OUR baser nature that makes us oppose such impulses!

You are probably right, many people will vote for programs due to a feeling of selflessness and self-sacrifice. What they miss, though, is that they then rely on the power of the state to impose their will on others. They are trying to take away the free will of others.

I am not a total objectivist; I do think that doing good things and giving to others is good. If done by your free will, and with the free consent of the other party. I also think that your efforts must be to raise the other party up.

I don't think that there is a contradiction in giving to others, if done by free will. If you are using selflessness in the objectivist method, however, then you are right. You can not give up the self and still retain free will. You can give, however, and do things for other people, without giving up the self, or requiring the other person to do so.

You should give OF yourself, not give UP yourself. As you and Fletch have already outlined.

I come by here often. I must say that your blog and Fletch's are among my favorites. I like your approach, although I don't always agree. Work and Home schedule recently have kept me from participating much lately.

Keep it up!

.. for the kind words about this blog. I too am a fan of Fletch's blog.

No worries about disagreeing occasionally (or even often). After all, that's part of the fun in the blogosphere!

A lively debate helps all of us sharpen our minds, re-check our assumptions and make sure of the consistency of our arguments.

visit your blog and Fletch's. I have learned so much from you all. I don't usually have a lot to say and I hope that is ok.

.. for visiting and for your comments.

It is nice to hear from visitors -- but, it is also perfectly OK to visit without commenting.