Why I Joined the GOP

Last week I got a piece of mail from the Utah election department that asked for my new address and any other new information that might be prudent to their records. I took a while to send it back. I had been thinking for a good long time about joining the Republicans. This time, other than the changed address, I put a check beside REPUBLICAN on party affilation. These are the reasons.

Getting Involved

It's so very easy to be on the sidelines, cheering or booing, making armchair views about decisions that you had little or no participation in. It's very easy to act like it isn't your fault the country is going to hell. It's very, very easy to stay out of it and simply pray for everything to work out. That, ladies and gentlemen, is something I could no longer do.

I'm not a big fan of our two parties. I think the Democrats are just like they were at the turn of the century. Big money, big power, big ideas with little room for the views for consequences. Such examples are Wilson's War Socialism, the New Deal and the Great Society. Each with noble aspirations and even a tinge of true moral righteousness, but what they did solved little and created more problems. Wilson put the economy under cartels, something FDR did, which created the so-called military-industrial complex. The New Deal prolonged the Depression by scaring investment as well as following Wilson's cartel model of industrial organization. The Great Society, while aiding many in poverty, also brought with it government induced behavior that now effects communities of all races. The Republicans are no better though. Pandering to some very out there religious folk, talking restraint in power while exercising loudly when in power, spending out the ass for programs they claim they don't believe in. The Democrats are statists, they use newspeak and believe in the crazy God-state idealism that has driven so many authoritarians... but at least they tell you they're crazy.

And that's a reason I joined: to fix the GOP. I'm not some fifth-generation Republican like some, nor am I true believer in Sarah Palin or the next big GOP star who may or may not destroy liberalism forever. I'm a libertarian conservative who sees his country going down the wrong path (since the early 1900s, mind you) and wants to change it. Third parties are dead and will be dead for a while due because of GOP/Democrat “bi-partisanship” on campaign finance laws that restrict such parties from ever gaining any power. I joined the GOP because, honestly, I had no other choice if I wanted to jump into the breach. Otherwise, I'd be the loneliest Dem on the planet.

Getting Things Done

If politics here were like politics in my other home of Canada, the Republican Party would probably be split between the fiscal conservatives and the social conservatives. The Democratic Party would probably lose the Blue Dogs to the fiscal conservative party while the center-left and far left would have their own parties. That's five parties, just like Canada had before the merger of the Reform Party and the Progressive Conservatives. Things got done at a very chaotic pace, or not at all. Even with four parties, the three recently defeated opposition parties (all left wing) attempted to bring down the six-week old Conservative Party government.

Things get done through our American uberparties, like it or not. Single payer advocates use the Democratic Party to get their issue out. Religious and traditionalist folks use the GOP. Foreign policy hawks like the GOP. Peaceniks like the Dems. If you want to enrich your union, go Dem. If you want to enrich your small business, go GOP. So on and so on. I think of the parties as a butt load of conflicting and/or cooperating interests stirred around in one giant political pot. And I'd rather star the ball rolling with a current party than spend decades working a third party that'll barely get noticed at all.

Getting Libertarian Conservatism Popular

For most of the 20th century, Republican presidents and Republican congresses have hardly held to their word on things like entitlements, spending, corruption, cutting down decades of old Progressive/new liberal fat off the Constitution. The libertarian wing of the party has been ignored for a very long time and that needs to change if this country is to be pulled off the road of socialist serfdom. Libertarian conservatism, a form of classical liberalism for the new age, is one of the keys to fixing this nation.

Things like Medicare/Medicade need drastic cuts and new, targeted missions. Welfare, while already reformed well, could be even more targeted. Social Security need to be shifted from lump sum money pot backed by government debt and given choice: want your SS in the stock market? Sure! Just want plain interest? Sure! Invest your money your way. Keep it mandatory, it is a good idea, but no longer will young folk's money go to retirees with aplenty of stocks, but it will be THEIR OWN MONEY they retire on. What an idea.

Checks and balances needs to be reintroduced into the political sphere, starting with term limits for Congressmen and Senators. Twelve years is enough to learn the trade and make a impact. The paternalism that comes from long term Senators like Byrd and Hatch, or Congressmen like Pelosi or Murtha, may feel good, but look at what they sponsor despite the feelings of those they represent. Added on to term limits should be the repealing of the 17th amendment. The Senate was never meant to be a second House. It was meant to be a check on the populism of the House by the self-interest of the elite of the state governments (Simon at Stubborn Facts has written of this at length). Two levels of Congress, both popularly elected, has only brought corruption, cross-House/Senate horse trading and horrible laws down upon us. Cleaning up Washington starts by reverting our Congress back to its original form.

Heaped upon checks and balances is the restitution of federalism in as pure form as we can have in our modern age. Rulings like Roe v Wade must go and abortion left up to the states, as it is a social issue and not one of rights, especially rights struck from the air around the heads of pretentious judges. The Commerce Clause may have to be reviewed and added as a new amendment as to narrowly define the reach Congress has over business in America. The current abuse of this clause has caused much damage for American workers and American working rights. The various civil rights amendments, especially the 14th, needs clarification as to rule out racial quotas and other federal racial programs. The 2nd needs to be incorporated, like all other individual rights, or all other individual rights need to be unincorporated. It's a total travesty of constitutional law that every single individual right (including made up ones like abortion) are applied to the states EXCEPT the right to bear arms. Simply put, the states need more social and economic control back as to be able to experiment socially or open up their markets as they please. Such decisions were never meant to be in the hands of Washington.

The reasons above, along with the mini manifesto, are the major reasons I decided to joined the much loathed GOP. I don't expect to change much, but I do expect to be able to honestly say I tried. And that's more than most of the country can boast.

Re-Reviewing Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Looking back at some of my old posts on my former cooperative blog, Blog-A-Boo, I discovered one of my longest and most intellectual posts [1]. I discovered that calling it intellectual is giving it a lot of unnecessary praise. One of the things every person, including intellectuals, should do is go back and criticize yourself. If you aren't able to be truthful about your past you won't be truthful about the present, and with intellectual dishonestly being a staple of today's political atmosphere [2] we all need to stop and reflect once in a while to make sure we're on the honest track. I will reevaluate the article and you can see for yourself the difference in opinion, which is vast in some areas and nary a inch moved in others.

Background

In the last few months of 2006 I came across a interesting and highly detailed blog called Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism [3] written by Kevin Carson. At that time, being a semi-read [4], semi-retarded [5] anarchist I thought the very idea of "free market anti-capitalism" would lead the world to explode, Jews and Muslims to start making out and David Caruso to act. Investigating further, it turns out that one of the core tenant of this blog, the undeniable efficiency of the free market, makes sense! It was during this self-identified political revelation that I took it upon myself to take on the libertarians over at LewRockwell.com [6]. I chose the article with the inflammatory title How 'Sweatshops' Help the Poor [7] by Thomas J. DiLorenzo and got to work.

Inclosure and The Birth of Capitalism

DiLorenzo's begins:

One of the oldest myths about capitalism is the notion that factories that offer the poor higher wages to lure them off the streets (and away from lives of begging, stealing, prostitution, or worse) or away from back-breaking farm labor somehow impoverishes and exploits them. They are said to work in "sweatshops" for "subsistence wages." That was the claim made by socialists and unionists in the early days of the industrial revolution, and it is still made today by the same category of malcontents – usually by people who have never themselves performed manual labor and experienced breaking a sweat while working. (I am not referring here to the red herring claim that most foreign "sweatshops" utilize some kind of slave labor. This is an outrageous propaganda ploy designed to portray defenders of free markets as being in favor of slavery).

The actions of the early days of capitalism were far from free markets. Inclosure (Consolidation) Act of 1801 was a gross act of state intervention in the economy which benefited both the country land owners and the urban factory owners by ending open land by"inclosing" (enclosing), or fencing off all land, by law. The costs of such a scheme brought down many independent farmers and ranchers, which in turn lead them to the city in search of new work, which lead them into the arms of the factory owners.

[T]he process remained harsh for the small farmer, the period of parliamentary inclosures paralleled a period of increasing industrial use of labor. Inclosed land did promote more efficient farming and was able to produce an ever-increasing agricultural output during the early 19th cent., when the population was growing rapidly. [8]

Although efficiency and mass farming bloomed and the obvious benefit of such things were passed around the nation, unfortunately for DiLorenzo, the "myth" is fact, no matter the political sway. Being an economics professor, DiLorenzo should know the history of capitalism, its origins in mercantilism and the slow move from industrial (state/monopoly) capitalism to freer and freer markets in Britain and the United States. There was no magic free market the minute Adam Smith put pen to paper. It took time. It took evolution of economy.

Unions

He continues:

That the anti-factory movement has always been motivated by either the socialists’ desire to destroy industrial civilization, or by the inherently non-competitive nature of organized labor, is further evidenced by the fact that there was never an "anti-sweat-farm movement." Farm labor is still as rigorous as any physical labor, as it was 150 years ago. Indeed, in the early days of the industrial revolution – and in Third World countries today – one reason why families had so many more children than they do in wealthier countries today is that they were viewed as potential farm hands. Abraham Lincoln had less than one year of formal education because his parents, like most others on the early nineteenth-century American frontier, needed him as a farm hand. But since agriculture was not considered to be a form of capitalism, and did not pose any real threat to unionized labor, there was never any significant social protest over it.

As an experienced former leftist I think I have some good authority on the motivations and feelings of socialists (as well as most branches of anarchism) and the "desire to destroy industrial civilization" is the complete opposite of what modern socialists want. Socialism wants control of industrial civilization, not its destruction. The Communist Manifesto says it outright [9]. Even most anarchist branches are for the control of the means of production, save the anarcho-primitivists/anti-civilization [10].

Another quip I have a big problem with is the claim that "[f]arm labor is still as rigorous as any physical labor, as it was 150 years ago". Did he totally miss the internal combustion engine? Factory farms? Genetically modified crops? During the time of the Industrial Revolution none of this was around, but apparently 150 years of technological advancement means nothing. It's hard to give DiLorenzo the benefit of the doubt that he's just a sloppy writer when basic history refutes his points. It may just be this piece is ideological, not factual.

Free Markets vs. Corporatism

It is never the workers in countries like Honduras who protest the existence of a new factory there built by a Nike or a General Motors. The people there benefit as consumers as well as workers, since there are more (and cheaper) consumer goods manufactured and sold in their country (as well as in other parts of the world). Capital investment of this sort is infinitely superior to the alternative – foreign aid – which always empowers the governmental recipients of the "aid," making things even worse for the private economies of "aid" recipients. Market-based capital investment is always far superior to politicized capital allocation. Moreover, if the foreign investment fails, the economic burden falls on the investors and stockholders, not the poor Third World country.

The aid arguement DiLorenzo gets right. Its been shown time and again [11], most recently in Burma [12], that aid to governments are much less efficient than private charity or direct economic investment. The problem with his arguement though is assuming that the investment is a free market investment and not one that sides more with corporatism [13].

Today, most major economies are not free market or near free market, but "mixed" [14]. In a mixed economy the government toys with the market in a way to create monopolies, restrict market access and benefit some industries over others. Jonah Goldberg, author of the great historical correction Liberal Fascism [15], says in his book and in other forums [16] that such intervention creates lobbyists who in turn direct the intervention to the benefit of their clients and to the detriment of their competitors, which are usually small business. Kevin Carson describes this in much more economic detail giving it the name cartelization:

[T]he big meatpackers were already subject to a federal inspection regime. The federal government had adopted the older system at their behest in the late nineteenth century, when an embarrassing tainted meat scandal threatened their market in Europe. The federal government at the time adopted inspection regulations for all meatpackers engaged in the export trade. It was a classic example of cartelization through the state: the meat exporters, which happened to be the largest firms, for all intents and purposes adopted an industry code enforced by the state. [17]

What DiLorenzo refuses to point out, and which is a common practice in the Third World, is that companies like Nike and other corporations are given special incentives to create factories and through those factories come jobs. He is absolutely right that the jobs benefit the worker and the community as a whole, but is it really the amazingness of the free market that does this or is it that a state created incentive in the market that allowed for it? Its a mixture. China is the best example. The opening of markets created prosperity in China, but I highly doubt the libertarians will point to China as an example of free markets at work. Yes, the market is part of the success of the rising Chinese economy, but you cannot discount that the state's manipulation of the markets has driven the same prosperity. An American example was FDR's rebirthed war socialism [18] during his presidency that brought about a state-driven prosperity after the defeat of the Axis powers.

Conclusion

DiLorenzo's piece, while factual in some areas, is quite ideological. To use another term from Carson, DiLorenzo's piece is an example of "vulgar libertarianism". Basically, he laments the state's intervention in the market while defending it with hilt and blade. Its quite amusing to read, and quite easy to destroy on it face. I'm a libertarian in the market as much as I can be: small streamlined regulation, low taxes, growth of our production industries, etc. We need a well-rounded economy. What corporatism has gotten us are the bubbles we've seen in the past 30 years. We're up on one industry through speculation and hope, then it collapses and we discover (again) that our foundations are disapearring.

If Ireland can do with a corporate tax a quarter of ours [19], we may need to rethink our protectionist strategy and just cut the rates. But that'd be the smart thing to do...

My Views

A quick view of my views.

Abortion

I have some personal objections to abortion that stem from a logical standpoint and from my personal view that I'd never want to abort a child that is mine. My biggest gripe with abortion is the Roe v Wade ruling. It was a hugely expansive reading of the 14th Amendment that came no where near the original intent of the Amendment and violate the principles of federalism. It was one thing to strike down the Texas law that was being ruled upon, but it was another to turn around and impose the ruling on the entire nation without nary a democratic vote.

Education

I believe a more competitive education system would do much better than the current monopoly. Allowing vouchers for private schools would be a great start. A reformation of the education system that promotes competition between schools based on grades would also help.

Energy

Create incentives for alternative energy while continuing to explore for oil and other modern fuels. We cannot strangle ourselves now so we can hope that a new fuel on the scale of gasoline will arrive sooner. The market will and always has provided new technologies. The recent spike in gas prices has driven the consumers to buy smaller cars and cars with good MPG. It will take time to transition, but it will happen.

Environment

Take moderation in dealing with global warming and its consequences to our economy. The top global warming scientist, Dr. James Hansen, recently gave his moral backing to eco-terrorists [1]. There is no doubt there is warming. There is no doubt we have some impact. But we must be wary of alarmists and radicals co-opting science for other agendas.

Guns

Why is it the 2nd Amendment is the only one on the Bill of Rights to be outright banned in some areas heavily regulated in others? The 1st isn't banned in Chicago and regulated in Los Angeles. The 4th isn't given so much scrutiny. It is an individual right affirmed by Heller v DC and we are so very lucky it did not go the other way due to Justice Kennedy's strange notions of "evolving standards of decency" [2]. The 2nd Amendment protects all others, and protects the individual from criminals. Guns are not the problem. Criminals are the problem.

Health care

It says something when we have a inefficient and expensive health care system and the market is blamed. In fact, the US government pays near 50% of all health care expenses. This is not the market, but a mixed industry. Universal Health Care, while noble, is hugely expensive and the ability to stop abuse and runaway spending would be near impossible. The US is already near bankrupt from its other mass social programs. UHC would be the death knell.

Homeland Security

Reform is needed. The federal government cannot, and should not, control the security in every major airport. Such massive centralism has bred mass incompetence. Devolve power to the states and cities while keeping a close-eye upon those parties. If needed, privatize.

Immigration

Build the damn wall. Borders are not invisible lines. They are legal boundaries that must be respected and protected if we are to keep our national sovereignty intact. The Europeans have strict border control. The Mexicans SHOOT the illegals that cross into their country. Are we to be the only country not to build a wall when there is a illegal immigrant problem?

LGBT issues

I support gay marriage (or unions, whatever word that will end this inane culture war). They must have the same legal rights as straight couples as everyone is equal under the law. Its either that or get government out of marriage.

Social Security

Privatize it. The current money pot is so broken we would need to raise taxes over 50% to get close to stopping it. People paying into their own SS account is smart and much more free than allowing the current generation to raid it, leaving nothing for those once the Boomers die out.

Taxes

Taxes must be lowered, espically corporate taxes. The reason our corporations flee is because we tax them twice as much as places such as Ireland, who while now in recession due to the credit crisis, was booming with new jobs, companies and a slew of new citizens willing to work those new jobs. If we want to have a booming physical economy in this nation and not rely on bubble after bubble, we need to treat our businessmen with respect, not treating every one of them as if they are all Enron or WorldCom.