Changing the Tone

As Trump goes to the continent, these would be my recommendations.

First, he cannot show hard-line nationalist support.  If he does this during his visit to Brussels, America stands a lot to lose diplomatically.  He is not a tool of the Right, but he is likely viewed as a tool of the Right, and he has to actively work to undermine these perceptions.  He can do this by showing a commitment to civil liberties, which as a New Yorker, shouldn’t be so hard to do.

Second, he cannot show Russian support.  Not only will this inflame the current inferno, but any wink/nod that really we are all on the same team will actively undermine liberty, promote fear, and further give way to Russian-style Network-Authoritarianism on the continent.  As much as he might think he can tell Brussels one thing and America another, he can’t.  This will not appease anyone.

Third, he needs to lean on Brussels to take a lead in diplomacy with Islam, while reiterating support for NATO, especially in a war on terror, now centered on the continent.  He should also work with the Vatican in this direction, while assuring them that the crisis in the American Church is over.

Trump has been at a continuous stand-off with the press in America, but in Europe, where they more readily see him for what he is, this will not fly.  Trump never does it, but the time is now, to drop the con and speak from the heart about Liberty under God.  There may be no other way.

 

Advertisements

An American Revolution

Bernie Sanders seems like a nice man.  He is genuine, and not mean, and not dumb – and saying the three together is saying a lot.  I nevertheless think he is wrong as to the nature of the revolution which America needs.

It is the common failing of many who take a calm and reasoned approach that they think the world would best evolve with a strictly calm and reasoned approach.  The truth is, it is with liberty that the world moves forward.  It is the creators and explorers – the ones pushing the envelope and making the most of what they are given – which change the world for the better.  And if it is the job of governance to maximize anything, it should be individual liberty, rather than a preconceived notion of utility handed from on high.  Sure the people often don’t truly know what is best for them – and this is specifically true in matters of security – but it is often equally true that the people supposedly concerned for other’s well being don’t truly know what is best for the future; and this is where the creators and explorers break through.

And this is where I have to tell Americans that under socialism and it’s older sibling, there are not breakthroughs.  There are not true leaders and there are not inspirers.  There is only one of the ways that the world has always been and it is deemed, by them, to be the right way, or else.  This kind of attitude is widespread on The Continent, and surely extends to Sander’s beloved Scandinavia.  But the EU in no way ‘has it right’.  The greatest problem is that a person of exceptional talent and production does not cut through the bureaucratic morass unless they first agree to toe the line on social issue X, Y, and Z; which are – guess what – policies which on the whole further restrict the liberty which talent needs in order to break through in the future.

Socialists, on this, are of course no worse than conservatives.  But it is time for us to recognize that we are actually neither.  We are actually Libertarians.  No, not corporate Libertarians, but actual Libertarians.  People concerned to preserve individual liberty, making as few compromises for the sake of security as possible, but not willing to let the perpetual creep of fear – notorious in Europe – undermine our future with its chill.

If there is to be any revolution at all – and there should be – it will have to be an American one.

Beyond He-Who-Shall-Remain-Nameless

“He was a strange type, yet one frequently met with, precisely the type of man who is not only worthless and depraved, but muddleheaded as well – one of those muddleheaded people who still handle their own little business deals quite skillfully if nothing else. […] Again I say it was not stupidity – most of these madcaps are rather clever and shrewd – but precisely muddleheadedness, even a special national form of it.”  – Brothers Karamazov, Fyodor Dostoyevsky

He who shall remain nameless has left us with some difficulty.  We must always remember the pen is mightier than the sword, but when only one person is allowed to speak and all the rest are left to react, then we are drawn into the muddleheadedness ourselves and it is better to just ignore it as best one can.  I am left to wonder what America is left with without him, and that is a great divide tilting in a distinctly un-American direction.

Cruz and Sanders represent dueling polemics and make for wonderful satirical caricatures of the positions they represent.  This leaves two sensible candidates – in principle – though one – in Kasich – who has far less backing than the other – Clinton – who despite the Clinton legacy, continues to drift toward Socialism. Clinton’s drift can be seen as a matter of positioning for the general election – in addition to stealing Sander’s thunder – but if Clinton is being forced that way in part under fear that he-who-shall-remain-nameless is a threat to her blue collar vote, and into socialist promises which she must later live up to, then the putsch on the Republican party can be seen as an eventual win for Socialism.

Socialism in Sander’s form and Conservatives in Cruz form are each equally damaging to America’s ideology in general – equally ‘un-American’ if you will.  But America must quickly become firm in its ideology or they will lose a greater war.  This may eventually entail a viable third party – properly libertarian, with a broad view of national security and broad protection of civil liberties.  For now, Kasich is the only candidate who appears firm in American ideology as long as Clinton continues to drift.

Leadership on Immigration

One obstacle to effective leadership in an interconnected world, is that Americans outside of leadership positions often need to be kept in the dark – to their chagrin – for the sake of more effective results; this often leads to a political backlash, although things were handled correctly from the standpoint of execution.  Secondly, also because of the interconnected world, leaders have the constant problem of integrating American way of life with the rest of the world, so that there is not a d0uble standard.  Add to this the third issue that Americans care more about their backyards than any international leadership, and international leadership on immigration when you are a country of immigrants with an immigration problem is a very difficult issue.

There will be strife, but when the dust settles, apt choices will have been made.

Obama’s Diplomatic Legacy

Whatever you might say about Obamacare, whatever you may say about a certain lacking in decisiveness, whatever you may say about his general inability as a superhero, you can say that Barack Obama did more for Americas image abroad than any president since Lincoln.  I am not, in saying this, assessing the merits of the presidency in any other dimensions than image abroad.  Though there are other areas in which such merits exist, it is my belief that the single greatest contribution was this. I have seen it personally. The making of amends with “Old Europe” was a step in the right direction, not a step back.

The problem, you must remember, was the previous administration.  You can make the argument that the previous administration needed to be the way it was: cold, tightlipped, brash… because they were fighting to maintain American culture, not in its oil consumption and general opulance, but in its protection of those things we must maintain: freedom of religion and both dimensions of freedom of speech, in addition to our general right not to be the property of another. But the lack of communication created a stir among those left out of the know – including Europe – and it was met, appropriately, by a President that did not stop talking.

Importantly, he was also not dumb. Here was a very charismatic individual who honestly tried to say what he could while attempting to reenergize america. Occassionally it was too much, but such slips should not be considered worse than consistent stonewalling. In the long run, slips that don’t destroy do engender trust, and it is trust which america lacked after the Bush administration. That trust itself was not lacking between the american people and Bush as much as it was lacking in the administration as a whole, which was largely viewed as an occassional puppet show by more than one intelligent critic.

So hope was a skinny Black man with a talent for communication, whom with honest courage, worthy of a Nobel, ran for president to put old problems to bed. He cared about people, and he tried to show it in his policies, but better, he showed America could also think and tell – tell enough to show that America was not just grabbing power. He has failed in many things, but one of these things was not representation. And through it all, he stood by the Military and even, in many ways, vindicated Bush. Given Americas presense in the world, there is little to complain about for the image reparations made. You can only flex your might for so long without loosening the reigns. Diplomacy is oftentimes the better part of valour, even when you are strong.

Our president shouldn’t always be focused on diplomacy and many worrying things remain for a tired America, but given a measure of diplomatic success, what is missing in the grander scheme is a systematic way to overcome the cycle of stonewalling and reparations. I don’t believe we were so very far from something terrible in the days after 9/11. I think much more could have been lost, and into the immanent “forever”. But it wasn’t. And in our recovery, it is important that we do better to understand how to avoid the rift between those who know and those who don’t, which threatens America and Americas image, whenever a call to arms is necessary.

Just Liberty

“Just Liberty” was written in 2010 and placed under lock and key.

Just Liberty

There is no better time than now for some common sense.  The fact is that we are a nation in some disarray.  On the one hand, we are concerned that we may be subject to terrorist threats should we let our guard down.  On the other hand, we are concerned that our liberties are eroding for the sake of safety, and that there is no end in sight but the police state.  This balance between liberty and safety is the matter when it comes to politics.  The Republicans are known as the military party, but the democratic spending is all defense spending of a social sort.  In the end, it is the balance between this spending as a whole, together with our residual liberties, which makes our nation what it is.

The recent ‘Libertarian’ uprising is a reaction, first and foremost, to the fact that our liberties seem to have become just that: residual.  That what matters in government is the control they have over our lives and not the protection of liberties at all.  In this light, it is not surprising that the people are rallying behind the “Tea Party” movement.  The promises that liberty can be restored, the promises that America can return to a golden age post-revolution.

But one cannot turn back the clock without also destroying the blueprints on all modern weaponry, including something as ordinary as the PC.  Realizing this, a restoration to the days of the constitution is not feasible, since for one, it is not really what anyone wants.  And should we like the comforts of technology, then we must also appreciate that the Constitution does not provide enough guidance on the matter of balancing liberties with security.  What we can say is this: the fig leaf is on the ground.  We have bitten from the apple for better or worse and we cannot go back.  So we must consider the amendment of some of those liberties, to some degree.  The romance of utter liberty has long been dead – for it was anarchy – but going back to the days of yore is not an option.  If we are to be Libertarians, we must make compromises.

Our foremost compromise must be in the area of privacy.  This sounds terrifying to some, but effectively, it is not as scary as one may think.  First, one cannot cause much trouble these days unless one is using a digital device.  As a result, we must make certain concessions.  Namely, that our communications will be monitored.  Second, one cannot have much influence unless one establishes a network; and this network is a subsequent threat to security.  The result is that one must admit to surveillance in public.  That is, public moments and discussions are public information.

People generally have a fear of being watched.  It is innate.  Should they realize that in their home they are being watched, or in public that they are being followed, this fear comes out regardless of their guilt as to a given matter.  To some extent this fear is rational; on the one hand you may be watched or followed for malicious reasons – the questions regard who is doing the watching or following.  We should all be quite a lot more comfortable should we know that the person doing the watching or following is also being watched or followed by a higher authority.  But then the issue becomes abuses of that authority.

The potential for abuse is obvious.  If the surveillance reveals strategic information then that strategy can be easily defeated or hedged, in most cases, in advance; leaving it less effective or not effective at all.  And if this means that Libertarians are defeated by Republicans or Democrats as a result, then obviously this is an abuse of power.  The same goes for business.  The same for personal battles.  As a result, to defend against such abuse, one has to amend the conditions of surveillance, such that it does not fall into the lap of interested parties – i.e. parties with an interest outside of keeping the peace.  The best method for this is automated surveillance, i.e. surveillance which starts, and in almost all cases, ends with a computer.

The fundamental issue has always been the balance of liberty with protection, or better, safety.  The protection need not always be in the form of military protection, it can at times be in the form of social welfare protection, which allows one the safety of income when they do not have work or the funds to deal with difficult disease, but how the balance is struck is always the issue.  For the Republican, the balance is thus: enforce conservative values so that social welfare costs are minimal and strengthen our military to prevent outside disruptions.  For the Democrats the balance is thus: strengthen our social welfare so that folks can live their civil liberties to the fullest and make friends with our world, so that they like us enough not to attack.

If you take either of these positions on their own, you will notice that they are frankly implausible.  On the one hand, you can’t force people to live risk free lives and this is by-n-large what you would need for no welfare.  On the other side, you cannot simply be friends with your neighbors, for you cannot simply allow yourself to be trampled on – as occasionally and unfortunately happens in this world.  Of course, no one would ever take only positions on the right or the left, since they would get killed in a political forum by someone more towards the middle.  Who is this person in the middle?  They go by “Democrat” or “Republican” or “Independent”, but they are sometimes at heart the Libertarian.

The Libertarian does not play only on the left or only on the right.  The Libertarian sees that the compromises of liberty can be addressed head on and not through the polar political dynamic.  They do this by realizing that effectively the political space is not appropriately filled.  What is missing is one who attaches foremost importance to liberty, but realizes that protection of all sorts are necessary and compromises need to be made in the sphere of taxation as well as civil liberty, and that they can be made and addressed directly, and at the same time.

What goes by “Libertarian” these days is puzzling.  It is true that a rollback to the days of the constitution is appealing, but the issue is that you cannot have your cake and eat it too.  If you want security, you must tax.  This is true whether you are Republican or Democrat.  Whether those taxes go to a social variety or whether they go to a military variety, you still need money to fund the projects.  The Republican façade has always been that taxes should be minimized.  But these tax breaks amount to kickbacks to the rich for favors of various sorts which amount to a means to a perceived social safety ends.  The democrats deal with social matters in a more direct way, but they fail to appreciate the social costs involved in not enforcing conservative lifestyles, and that there are other protections that need to be addressed.