Progressives?

I recently read an article in the Wall Street Journal written by Ronald Pestritto, the author of a book that aims to link the original progressives with modern-day progressives and liberals. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704554104575435942829722602.html?KEYWORDS=glenn+beck+progressives

I've been trying to decide for myself for a long time whether there was a worthwhile comparison between these two groups, and if there were, what that would mean.

I've come to the following conclusions:

Did progressives do some good things? We would all be intellectually dishonest if we answered "No." Some of the regulations they made in regards to child labor, food contamination, and safe work environments are vital parts of a thriving industrialized society.

Did they only do things that overstepped the constitutional framework? No. However, where they went wrong was where they overstepped their constitutional powers for the "greater good." In my mind, putting Japanese people in internment camps, strong-arming protesters (during each world war), and other limits on basic rights were where the progressives went wrong. Additionally, changing the way the government operated generally, including making a central bank that prints money and endeavors to control the market, taking power and representation away from the states in the name of "democracy" (the 17th Amendment), stripping states of sovereign territory (National Parks system), and the legacy that these interferences left with the National Government continuing to usurp power from the states and individuals for the "greater good."

In this way there is a definite link between the original progressives and modern-day liberals/progressives. They seek to increase the centralized power and authority of the government in order to create a society that fits their own idea of the "model society." In order to do this, they may subvert the Constitution or anything else for the "greater good." To them, the ends justify the means, as could be seen through both world wars and the squelching of protests and political prisoners, and then today with the passing of Obamacare "Chicago style."

Even so, did they have some good ideas that we could learn from? Sure. Even Hitler came up with a couple good ideas, like the autobahn. Do these ideas mean we should give them a pass and embrace everything they believed in? If that be the case, then we might as well embrace Hitler's ideas as well.

I don't begrudge them at all for the good they did in making the market safer. I do begrudge the legacy of the federal power grab and continual efforts to out-step their constitutional bounds.

The Case Against Bowing

One of the jobs of our president is to represent the United States in all foreign relations. Obama has tried to improve US foreign relations that were strained over some foreign policies of past administrations. He has been trying his best to show respect to world leaders. His problem is that he has misunderstood the cultural significance placed on bowing in many cultures. There is a fine art to bowing, and how or when you do it has a lot of meaning in cultures that use it.

The best example for this can be seen in the following picture:

Here, he is bowing to the Emperor of Japan. Obama, as the leader of a country, is socially on the same level as the Emperor. In Japan, these levels are EXTREMELY important in understanding how you should behave. In this international situation, it is important that Obama pay attention to what the other does, being a guest in that culture. IF the Emperor were to bow, Obama would be expected to bow. If he didn't, then ANY bow would be deferential and a sign not of respect but of the other's superior position. This is the same in most cultures that customarily bow.

The depth of the bow has meaning, as well. If the Emperor were to bow, he would have dipped only slightly. In the picture, Obama has bowed down about as far as one should culturally while the Emperor has opted not to bow, giving the clear signal that the Emperor is in a far superior social position.

How does this translate in the world of politics? Obama has been parading around the world apologizing for every act the US has ever done or been accused of doing. If you add the bowing, this sends the clear signal that under the current administration, the US is willing to kowtow to any and every nation in the world. He is sending the message that we are weak, ashamed of who we are, and at the mercy of other countries. Has the US made mistakes? Yes, as has every other nation. Should we apologize? Maybe, but more importantly we should try to make things right. Should we be ashamed of who we are? Absolutely not! The US has done more to bring economic and political freedom to more people in the world than any other country in history.

P.S. From what I've been able to find, Obama's now bowed down to the Saudi King, the Japanese Emperor, two Chinese officials on separate occasions, the King of Norway, and likely others.

John Locke is Dead(?)

It doesn't matter really what side of the healthcare debate you fell on, the recent passage of the monstrous Obamacare bill was bad for you and all of America. This is, by the way, more than the substance of the bill, which I don't think there's a person alive that knows everything in it's expansive 2,000+ pages. I speak mainly on the manner in which it was passed. Although our president, by his own admission in a recent interview with Brett Baier on Fox News, doesn't pay mind too much about the process used, the processes set up by our Constitution are there to ensure the protection and reflection of the will of the people. Our Founding Fathers all believed in this overarching principle: government is only legitimate inasmuch as their citizenry cede them the power and authority to rule over them. This was the entire basis behind the Declaration of Independence, the original founding document of our country:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

This is a principle of John Locke, an enlightenment philosopher whose ideas our Founding Fathers borrowed extensively. Our Congress and President have decided that what they think and what they believe is more important than what the majority of Americans think and believe. In their eyes, all of their actions are legitimate because they were elected. While they are correct in that we live in a republic and we gave them legitimacy and authority by electing them, they are also incorrect in that they subverted the legislative process in order to pass a law that a majority of Americans didn't like. In essence, they have said to the American people that "consent of the governed" is an outdated principle. I won't begin to pretend, either, that this is a partisan or recent issue. Both parties have been guilty for a while of "jamming through" legislation that was unpopular, but not necessarily at such a fiscal liability or in such a partisan way. How much longer will the "governed" consent to this?

American Education

I've been thinking about the education system in the US and why it has been turning out students that are less prepared for college compared to their foreign counterparts. There are of course those structural arguments that the way we set up our education system is completely different than the way they do in most countries. We try to educate everyone, even those who will have no hope of living independently and holding down a job. However, I've been concerned lately with cultural factors more lately.

I may be teaching in a school that represents the extreme for this, but it seems that students in the US don't take their educations seriously. Going to school is something they have to do, for most of them. If they weren't forced to be there, they wouldn't be. Contrast that with some other countries, where students take their educations very seriously, going early, coming home late, and going to a tutor in between. By the time they get to college, they have spent more time on scholastic achievement than the average American college graduate. It's no wonder there are far more students overseas that are interested in math and science, because they have lived and breathed it for the previous 12 years.

I heard the results of a troubling study recently. The study said that the rising generation will likely be the first generation in US history that is less educated, less successful, and poorer than the previous generation. I don't think this has much to do with the teachers being trained, but more with the students' willingness to learn.

Superfluous Agencies

I was reading the newspaper yesterday, and it talked about how the Obama administration wanted to start a spending freeze for parts of the budget for this next year to get the government's finances under control. It also talked about how he wanted to appoint a commission to investigate congressional spending. That got me thinking, "Isn't the House of Representatives our 'commission' on spending? Isn't that a part of their job. And for that matter, isn't there also the CBO and a myriad of committees that bills pass through in order to make sure they are sound?" I guess we've gotten to a point where elected officials are too busy doing things they weren't elected for that they don't have time to do their jobs the way they should.

For that matter, isn't one of the Presidency's major responsibilities homeland security? Why is it then that we need a whole new agency to deal with that? The list of redundant and unnecessary programs and agencies goes on and on. Why can't we streamline government just like you would a business to cut down on cost and waste? Oh, it's because the only thing some of these guys are good at is spending other people's money.

Separation of Church and State

I really would like to get people's feedback and comments on this one.

The other day I had a discussion with two liberal coworkers about high school sports. Apparently it's a law (or at least a high school sports association policy) in Alaska that they can't have any sports games or championships on Sunday. My two friends were telling me that it is discriminatory to other religions that have their holy days on Friday or Saturday. Their argument was that all days should be open for sports activities, and that way it would be most fair. By catering to the Christian majority, they argued, it is tyranny of the majority.

I brought up the idea that these sorts of things can't be all things for all people, but they might as well be as much as they can for as many people as possible. They said that by not catering to anyone they are being everything for everyone. I thought that was an interesting spin. By being nothing for anyone, they are claiming to be everything for everyone.

They threw in an additional argument that it wasn't fair for kids that they had known of in some rural towns whose board of education wouldn't allow sports teams to compete in local and state competitions on Sunday, which made it unfair for students who didn't believe the same way. This was a red herring, though, because we were talking about state-wide mandates, not local policies.

Does a state government have the constitutional right to cater to a particular religion? Is there a difference between establishment and catering? Does "freedom of religion" mean "freedom from religion?" Did the founders intend for there to be a complete absence of religious considerations in the public discourse?

Entitlements

I think that a lot of the people where I live are wonderful. Many of them are very nice and welcoming. One of the biggest problems facing them, though, is the problem of entitlements.

I live in a small village in Alaska that is much like a reservation in the lower 48. The village is comprised mostly of natives, at about 95% of the population. When the Federal Government came into Alaska and started taking land, they dealt with the natives differently than in the lower 48. They bought the land for the estimated value it had to the natives and allowed the natives to keep a certain amount of it.

The money from the sale went to set up several regional corporations. The one serving the village where I live is called the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, or ASRC. Every native born on the slope is given a share in the corporation. It is my understanding that the shares can be bought or sold from there, just like any other corporation. This corporation wasn't hit hardly at all in the recent economic downturn. Consequently, the natives still get dividend payments of $5,000-$7,000/person twice a year.

If that were the only entitlement here, things would be different, I'm sure. The Federal Government and local government provides nearly everything else for them, also. Health care is basically free for natives. If they need to fly to Anchorage for treatment, they will help cover the costs. Nearly all of them are eligible for WIC and Welfare due to various conditions up here. Also, in school every student gets all of their supplies given to them, including a laptop. There are no fees to students for use of facilities, including the pool. And the list goes on.

Are all of these things in and of themselves a bad thing? No, in fact I think that helping people who need it is our responsibility as Christians. However, having everything handed to them has made the natives that I have met feel like they deserve everything handed to them. It has destroyed the initiative of many of them. It has made many of them irresponsible. Many of them, in fact, when they try to move out and do things on their own find it extremely difficult because they aren't used to having to be to work on time or pay the rent on time (people not paying rent for months at a time has become such a problem up here that there are elaborate incentive programs to get them to do it--and they don't get evicted because it's owned by the local government). They will often move back a few months after leaving because of the difficulty they faced.

This is the problem! Entitlements destroy initiative and personal responsibility. Some people would say that providing for the "Common Welfare" means that every person should have every need, and most of their wants, taken care of by the government. It is dehumanizing to rob people of their ability to provide for themselves.