Partisan Politics—A Fool’s Game for the Masses
By Robert Higgs on Oct 12, 2009 in Uncategorized
Because I despise politics in general, and the two major parties in this country in particular, I go through life constantly bemused by all the weight that people put on partisan political loyalties and on adherence to the normative demarcations the parties promote. Henry Adams observed that “politics, as a practice, whatever its professions, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds.” This marshalling of hatreds is not the whole of politics, to be sure, but it is an essential element. Thus, Democrats encourage people to hate big corporations, and Republicans encourage people to hate welfare recipients.
Of course, it’s all a fraud, designed to distract people from the overriding reality of political life, which is that the state and its principal supporters are constantly screwing the rest of us, regardless of which party happens to control the presidency and the Congress. Amid all the partisan sound and fury, hardly anybody notices that political reality boils down to two “parties”: (1) those who, in one way or another, use state power to bully and live at the expense of others; and (2) those unfortunate others.
Even when politics seems to involve life-and-death issues, the partisan divisions often only obscure the overriding political realities. So, Democrats say that anti-abortion Republicans, who claim to have such tremendous concern for saving the lives of the unborn, have no interest whatever in saving the lives of those already born, such as the poor children living in the ghetto. And Republicans say that Democrats, who claim to have such tremendous concern for the poor, systematically contribute to the perpetuation of poverty by the countless taxes and regulations they load onto business owners who would otherwise be in better position to hire and train the poor and thereby to hasten their escape from poverty.
If the unborn children happen to be living in the wombs of women on whom U.S. bombs and rockets rain down in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, however, all Republican concerns for the unborn evaporate completely, as do the Democrats’ concerns for the poor children living in the selfsame bombarded villages. Both parties’ positions would seem to rest on very flexible and selective morality, if indeed either party may be said to have any moral basis at all, notwithstanding their chronic public displays of “moral” wailing and gnashing of teeth.
In any event, the parties’ principles of hatred have never passed the sniff test; indeed, they reek of hypocrisy. Thus, while railing against the “corporate rich,” the Democrats rely heavily on the financial support of Hollywood moguls and multi-millionaire trial lawyers, among other fat cats. And the Republicans, while denouncing the welfare mother who makes off with a few hundred undeserved bucks a month, vociferously support the hundreds of billions of dollars in welfare channeled to Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and General Electric, among many other companies, via larcenous “defense” contracts, Export-Import Bank subsidies, and countless other forms of government support for “national security” and service to “the public interest” as Republicans conceive of these nebulous, yet rhetorically useful entities.
Notice, too, that although ordinary Democrats and Republicans often harbor intense mutual hatreds, the party leaders in Congress rub shoulders quite amiably as a rule. Regardless of which party has control, the loyal opposition can always be counted on to remain ever so loyal and ready to cut a deal. And why not? These ostensible political opponents are engaged in a process of plunder from which the bigwigs in both parties can expect to profit, whatever the ebb and flow of party politics. At bottom, the United States has a one-party state, cleverly designed to disguise the country’s true class division and to divert the masses from a recognition that unless you are a political insider connected with one of the major parties, you almost certainly will be ripped off on balance. Such exploitation, after all, is precisely what the state and the political parties that operate it are for.
Yet, rather than hating the predatory state, the masses have been conditioned to love this blood-soaked beast and even, if called upon, to lay down their lives and the lives of their children on its behalf. From my vantage point on the outside, peering in, I am perpetually mystified that so many people are taken in by the phony claims and obscurantist party rhetoric. As the song says, “clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right,” but unlike the fellow in the song, I am not “stuck in the middle.” Instead, I float above all of this wasted emotion, looking down on it with disgust and sadness. Moreover, as an economist, I am compelled to regret such an enormously inefficient allocation of hatred.
VERY well-stated, Dr. Higgs. Thank you.
Speedmaster | Oct 12, 2009 | Reply
Bob Higgs hits it out of the park!
sandre | Oct 12, 2009 | Reply
This is wonderful Dr. Higgs, thank you.
Wes Dillard | Oct 12, 2009 | Reply
St. Bob – Patron Saint of the Truth. There’s only you and Arthur Silber I can read without feeling nauseous these days. It would be nice to see similar commentary in the “mainstream” media. Ah, but that’s owned by the corporate communists. Sorry, I forgot.
It is a joy to get away from the left/right inanities. There are only three groups in society: The Sadistic Elite, The Masochistic Masses and the Individualists.
There is nothing else in life but the individual and compatibility. Think and act for yourself to make your life better. The human species has always run on selfishness. They just prefer to hide it behind a heavy layer of self-delusion.
And on that misanthropic note I’m off again.
Mike Craggs | Oct 12, 2009 | Reply
Prophetic. As one who cries from the wilderness.
alzurzin | Oct 12, 2009 | Reply
Hey, thanks from peering down at us from your fun-filled floating ivory tower. As someone who has actually run for office and worked in party politics, I’m always just tickled pink by such rhetoric as this. Very few people I’ve ever met in either party are all about “hate,” as you put it. That includes those near the top and those you suggest are the foolish masses. Maybe you watch too much TV? I don’t know (I don’t have a TV), but I’ll just keep fighting to shrink government from down here in the trenches and you just keep lobbing grenades my way, okay? Thanks!
Trent | Oct 12, 2009 | Reply
You’re right, except about not being stuck in the middle. Unfortunately, try as one might, we are ALL stuck in the middle except for those political insiders.
shill | Oct 13, 2009 | Reply
I generally love your libertarian thinking, but you sound like a grumpy old man here.
“I hate politics” you say, yet it gives you your livelihood.
Quit whining and figure out something better if you’re so damn smart.
Richard Howard | Oct 13, 2009 | Reply
One could throw a dart at a list of political systems and/or methodologies and come up with a better way of doing things than the farce we now have.
Here’s a thought, Mr. Howard— Have those in national office adhere to the U.S. Constitution or vote them all out of office. If the next batch doesn’t abide by constitutional restraints, vote them out as well. Sooner or later, candidates will get the message.
Please see here, and especially, their “F.A.Q.” section. This is only one of the many ways in which Congress completely ignores the Constitution.
Scott Haley | Oct 13, 2009 | Reply
Oh dear. A disappointed customer.
I wonder why you chose not to display my comment which I made last night (UK time) on this post. Too much reality for you, or was it not of the simplistic “nice post” variety? Both seem unlikely as other comments complained about your grumpy nature and were, therefore, critical of you without being deleted.
Not literary enough? Quite possible, I’m no Hemingway. On the other hand as it is a blog which has a comments section (although you don’t appear to have a comments policy) I rather thought that being a libertarian anarchist, free speech was pretty much a given. It seems I was wrong.
If you don’t like my personal philosophy on life your entirely welcome to your opinion, however, it would be nice if you had the integrity to actually say so in response through the comments section rather than just deleting something because it doesn’t appeal to you personally. Perhaps a few of your readers may have agreed with me. It would have been a few, I happily admit. Most people spend their time desperately trying to avoid reality so they aren’t going to welcome my views on life.
I just find it strange, and ultimately very disappointing, that a libertarian blog effectively censors free speech if it doesn’t fit within some nice little personal paradigm of selfishness.
It is your blog so you can publish and delete what you like but if you are picky about what you chose to display you could at least put up a comments policy and say that anything that you personally don’t like will be deleted without further correspondence. As it wasn’t a spam comment packed full of links and contained no bad language and was on topic I can see no other reason to delete it other than censorship. A restriction on other people’s free speech because it doesn’t align with your own point of view.
Of course, if I am wrong about all the above and the comment was lost through technical problems or dodgy digital dexterity I will have to come back with a grovelling apology.
Well, Mr Higgs, which of us is due the apology?
Mike Craggs | Oct 13, 2009 | Reply
All good, Dr. Higgs–except that last line…
If there IS a more efficient allocation of hatred, I don’t want to know about it!
Jerry | Oct 13, 2009 | Reply
THE CHANGING FACE OF DEMOCRATS and the loss of our Libertarian Roots cover the history of the Democratic Party. America’s first major political party changed from a libertarian party of Jefferson to Cleveland to a Rousseau to Marx-leaning liberal, left-wing party. The Democratic Party’s original ideals encouraged free markets, individual freedom, state’s rights and personal sovereignty. What happened? When and how did their policies begin to change? Why did a strongly patriotic party morph into one that blends communism, mercantilism and socialism? Whether you are Democrat or Republican, this narration is a study of history, fact, and the leadership that altered the Democratic Party. It shows that present-day Democratic values do not reflect the true principles on which American society rests. See here.
Clay Barham | Oct 13, 2009 | Reply
Bob,
The inclination to rant is understandable. So I hope you feel better having gotten it out of your system. I think most of us who are reading the Independent Institute info and blog already understand all you have described.
Enjoy each moment (despite the crappy politics).
Tom | Oct 13, 2009 | Reply
You’re not really going to leave my comment in moderation just because I disagreed with the post are you? I’m a big fan and associate with a lot of other fans of Independent Institute … seriously, are you going to force me to have this as an anecdote about your organization?
Trent | Oct 13, 2009 | Reply
Tell us how you really feel Bob!
Michael Hunley | Oct 13, 2009 | Reply
Government is a criminal gang.
Patrick | Oct 13, 2009 | Reply
Geez, what gives with the readership here?
Mike and Trent remind me of teenage girls who have hissy fits when their boyfriends don’t return there text messages within ten minutes. Don’t you fellas have anything more important to do while you wait than sending impatient emails begging for public attention?
Dr. Higgs, love whatever you have to say. If you sound a wee bit jaded, well it seems to me well justified.
And as my sainted aunt used to say, “I don’t care what they say about you, I think you’re all right.”
Cathy Cuthbert
Cathy | Oct 13, 2009 | Reply
The AmeroConned Sheeple may not always love their rulers but they never question the concept that they should be ruled and most are so brainwashed and clueless they don’t even realize they are ruled.
Bob Bogus | Oct 13, 2009 | Reply
It’s easy:
If you ain’t in charge, someone else is.
If you ain’t in charge, someone else tells YOU what to do, not the other way around.
“Two Party” is a misnomer, just the same as saying the Earth is the center of our Universe.
Only in your head, is that true. After all, with the massive lack of the American Population thinking for themselves, they do indeed tend to regurgitate many things, including others’ ignorance, and rightly so.
Your are NOT in control when-
You must pay THEM to exist.
You must ASK them for ANYTHING rightfully yours.
You ARE in control when-
They depend on YOU to exist.
They fear you….greatly.
They ask YOU to do ANYTHING.
You just forgot you don’t have to pay a lazy worker, who isn’t good at a job. After all, if I was as stupid as Congressman, Presidents, Senators (of the State OR the Federal), I would immediately be fired for being borderline “retarded”.
Take offense at that statement. Feel free.
Yet you won’t take offense at being raped, literally, by those who are the lowest common denominator: Politicians. They are too lazy to get real jobs, and live off of you instead. I don’t NEED Politicians, or Governments. I DESPERATELY need True Americans who will fight.
With a Legion of Real Americans…..all things could be fixed. Not just some things, by some people, for their own gain, or for their own ego. “Votes” mean nothing….when “votes” don’t count. Common Sense in a money-based, massively bloated country means MONEY means everything, the more you got, the more they listen, the more you own of them. Duh…
Finally, and in real truth:
I have the highest regard for a Prostitute, and the lowest for a Politician. The Prostitute is at least honest about herself and job, and when paid, does the job I ask, when I ask it, like any employee of mine should, and would. Only a Politician would ask you for your money, lie to you, do nothing and be the worst paid whore in the world.
Adage (of the Old Prostitute/Politician)-
“First I did it for myself, then my friends, and now, I do it for the money”.
Guy | Oct 14, 2009 | Reply
I have attempted to point out to people quite often, the divide and conquer strategy of government.
First, separate us into groups according to race, religion, age, gender, abilities, nationality, geographical location, occupation, economic status, etc…
Second, pit us against each other.
Third, get in the middle and rescue “us” from “them” by regulating “their” actions and stealing “their” undeserved wealth.
What people really need to get through their noggins is that there are really only two classes – Those who believe in the initiation of force as a legitimate means of achieving their goals, and those who do not.
I like to call them the peaceful productive class and the pernicious parasite class.
Bryan Morton | Oct 14, 2009 | Reply
Personally, I do not see bitterness in this particular blog posting. Robert Higgs seems to have written a poignant blog entry which seems to be rubbing some folks the wrong way.
The truth may not sound all that wonderful to some people but it is the truth. Maybe we can all take something from this and do something. Perhaps, we can write our senators and congress persons and remind them that we are their bosses. We must put them on notice. Perhaps, one day we may put them out of business as Thoreau suggested.
John | Oct 14, 2009 | Reply
Wendell Berry’s catch phrase, “Agenda of Evil,” accurately captures the immorality of our government’s domestic and foreign policies.
Dan | Oct 14, 2009 | Reply
“enormously inefficient allocation of hatred” – I like this line. I like the idea of efficiently directing our hatred to the areas where it will be most productive : )
Kevin | Oct 14, 2009 | Reply
The concentration of almost all the supply side resources of the political market in the hands of the Democratic and Republican parties is unconstitutional and otherwise illegal, even if one were to make the unrealistic assumption, for the sake of this argument, that the two parties are politically independent from each other and compete for the shares of that side of the market (rather than, as they are, constrained to move in tandem by the common anti-democratic and anti-republican forces behind the scenes). This concentration guarantees, among other, that the meeting by the supply side of the section of the market’s demand side that lies outside of the spheres of operation of the two parties, as, for example, in the area of the defense of liberties and individual rights, is either impeded or estopped altogether.
Under the constitutional lens, the above dynamic of the political market reveals a host of associated violations of individual rights, particularly in the areas of the protected by the First Amendment voting rights, freedom of the (now effectively castrated) political expression, the substantive and procedural due process rights of the individuals interested in providing the lacking political products and services to the society, as well as the substantive and procedural due process rights of the entire citizenry, whose access to a full (fair in this regard) political process is effectively denied. If the three branches of our government served the people, they would have outlawed the processes that have enabled such operation of the Democratic and Republican parties. Have they done so, of course, the entire premise of the piece at hand would have failed.
If the three branches of our government applied the same reasoning as they have, with varying vigor and integrity, to the economic markets, they would have outlawed the current manner of the operation of the Democratic and Republican parties, enacting and enforcing, with varying vigor and integrity, political anti-trust measures paralleling those that have been taken in the economic arena. Again, have they done this, the entire premise of the piece at hand would have failed.
Jacob Roginsky | Oct 14, 2009 | Reply
Thanks, Cathy Cuthbert…
Patience is indeed a virtue — except of course when the tiger is chasing you through the jungle.
Tim | Oct 14, 2009 | Reply
Bob, you captured my thoughts pretty well here. I’m constantly nauseated by the kool-aid drinkers on the left and the right that waste so much time, effort, and energy agitating for their “team” to win the reigns of power, when the true nature of that power is on full deadly display for those who aren’t willfully blind to see. The fool wearing the Obama T-shirt and the clown with a “W” bumper sticker are 2 sides of the same demented, delusional coin.
Scott | Oct 14, 2009 | Reply
Winston Churchill once said, “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.”
You “float above” it all? No in fact you benefit from one of the best forms of governments in spite of all the problems. It’s like a teenager who complains about their parents unknowing of all they really do for her. They only focus on the parental restrictions assuming the benefits would just be there otherwise. You offer no alternative but I could give you one. Go try out anarchy in one of the African states or maybe even Haiti… it’s a little closer.
I guess somehow you expect getting 300 million people to agree on something should be much easier then it is.
Jokers? Clowns? Abusive politicians? Float above them? I don’t think so. And regarding the privileged position of an economist… that doesn’t exist in an anarchy.
muirgeo | Oct 14, 2009 | Reply
Dr. Higgs,
I agree with everything you say, and you express yourself so eloquently and succinctly, that sometimes I think I should just quit writing in my own blog and just forward your articles to everyone I know. I also Love to listen to your speeches on CD.
Thank you for teaching and writing.
I hope you keep going and going……
Donna Mancini | Oct 14, 2009 | Reply
There is no true salutary affect induced within the American bifurcated political system. To think otherwise is to be deeply in denial, and many, many Americans are exactly that…
One “party” creates the tragedy—while the other party implements that tragedy, vise versa.
The product of the American government-controlled school system and its tribal inculcation are a raving success! Why anyone with true aspirations to have freedom, liberty, privacy and private property, would live the only life you will ever have under the master’s yoke and lash is well beyond this free man’s thoughts. Let each accept his or her self-employed fetters, supported well by history’s unlearned lessons. “Anyone who needs to be persuaded to be free, doesn’t deserve to be.” ~ L. Neil Smith
“Americans will not get what they want but they will surely get exactly what they deserve.” ~ Gore Vidal
C’est la guerre,
Capt. A.
Principaute de Monaco
GMT +2:00 CET
Capt. A. | Oct 14, 2009 | Reply
The political system and more importantly, it’s product the political economy are great abominations of mankind. There may be a few trivial differences, but it’s all under the same statist mindset.
Michael Orlowski(TheOrlonater) | Oct 14, 2009 | Reply
Clay, what happened was that the Dems used states’ rights as a rationale, first for slavery, and then for Jim Crow and segregation, thus discrediting in too many people’s eyes a basic tenet of federalism, not to mention harming others and disgracing themselves.
In fact, it is not possible to base good political arguments on states’ rights rather than individual rights (loosely called “personal freedoms” by many). National governments do not have rights; no subdivision of national or local government has rights. Individuals do, and they have them regardless of the existence or nonexistence of a constitution. To defend individual rights is the trick and that’s where a proper constitution and adherence to its principles is vital.
The original American idea was government as a protector of rights and property, and not as a despoiler, let alone as some sort of agency that picks and chooses between some men and others, as to how to treat them under law.
STG | Oct 14, 2009 | Reply
Trent,
Perhaps jaded by my years, I don’t have a lot of hope that folks like Trent will prevail. I’d be grateful for some encouragement from you, Trent, or others who have had actual success in shrinking government at any level and could share their experience.
will | Oct 14, 2009 | Reply
Prof. Higgs makes a good point that people who allegedly hate each other’s politics often are able to get along very well when it comes to divvying up the swag robbed from the rest of us.
When will the rest of us–left wing and right wing LIBERTARIANS–learn to “agree to disagree” on particulars, and learn to co-operate with each other on important questions, such as war and peace, taxation, and the environment, among others, against the statist crooks and sociopaths infesting “our” government, and its attendent corporations and tax-exempt foundations, to our great woe and danger?
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
David K. Meller | Oct 14, 2009 | Reply
Oh, ****
Now I’ve got to come back with a grovelling apology.
ahem…
Sorry.
…Or perhaps you were just scared that since I posted on this on my blog that the one slightly baffled and bewildered reader a decade I get was going to come round and give you a hard time.
Yeah, that’s it… That’s why you caved in… fear. (You know, self delusion is a wonderful thing at times.)
Mike Craggs | Oct 14, 2009 | Reply
Hey, Trent. I’ve seen a lot of hate on the right of politics, especially amongst those who insist they don’t hate anyone, but unfortunately their words don’t often align with their actions.
Of course the left and their philosophy of love are actually just as bad as the right. And the reason is selfishness. Both left and right simply use love and hate as a source of personal justification to force upon others what benefits themselves, and both will insist that they are only thinking of you while they do it. It is why both the state and the markets will always fail to make a social utopia.
Utopia is personal not social. Anyone using a system to impose their personal form of utopianism will abuse as many as they help as they are only really interested in creating a utopia for themselves. Any claims to the contrary are just attempts to justify their actions and prevent others from trying to stop them.
Whether Bush hated or Obama loves those in Iraq and Afghanistan (and whether you want to classify it as a war or a peacekeeping action) is probably immaterial to those who live there. Because whether you are killed in the name of hate or love you are just as dead.
And reducing the state won’t make any difference to the levels of abuse in society because it won’t affect the levels of selfishness in society. Neither will the markets, come to that. (That’s why I like St Bob’s analysis but tend to disagree with his solutions.)
I’m off to annoy somebody else now.
PS: The misanthropic outlook is closest to reality, but as humans hate reality so they hate the truth and, as a consequence, they reverse their hatred and accuse misanthropists of hating them. Most humans only want their own individual reality which they, and what they value, are the center of and they will do their best to create it. Getting in the way of that egotistical perversion of reality can be terminal – ask those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Well, those who are still alive.
Mike Craggs | Oct 14, 2009 | Reply
Hey, Cathy
“…teenage girls who have hissy fits…” Say, don’t let this dress fool ya, girl. I’m all man, all 4′ 6″, 100lbs of me. I admit Trent looks silly in that pink tutu, but he works in politics; You can’t expect him to have style.
And I have lots of important things to do. There are mirrors clamouring for my attention; there’s Obama’s Peace Prize to blog about; there’s… there’s… Don’t you worry, girl. I have lots to do. Yeah, lots…
PS: Peace Prize! He’s slaughtered his way through three countries. Who are they giving it to next year, Hitler?
Mike Craggs | Oct 14, 2009 | Reply
Prof. Higgs might have conceded that the U.S. nowadays has a *relatively good government* by historical standards. It falls short of the ideal, but when it is compared with most other governments of the present and past his rhetoric seems overheated.
Philo | Oct 14, 2009 | Reply
Trent,
After over 20 years in this effort, and FOUR runs for public office, I have to disagree with you. Perhaps you’re young and still have the idealism that voting can make a difference, believe me, I was there once.
I’ve even given up my membership in the Libertarian Party as it has become far too statist and supportive of the status quo.
Keep up your idealism as long as you can, ignorance truly is bliss.
And, Philo, by the historical standards of the United States we absolutely do not have a “relatively good government”. It’s all gone downhill since the Constitution and, especially, since the election of Abraham Lincoln.
Keith Hamburger | Oct 14, 2009 | Reply
First and most importantly, great work, as always, Bob!
Secondly, the concept (and belief) that it is possible to “shrink government from within” strikes me as similar, in scope and logic, to a black man like me joining the Klan in hopes of reducing the number of hangings.
Sounds crazy and misguided, right? (There’s a reason for that.)
Wilt Alston | Oct 14, 2009 | Reply
So how are you different from Michael Moore exactly? Benefiting from the very system that you somehow have managed to rise above?
If the world is full of scandalous governments (ours included) then how has our nation managed to somehow rise to a (albeit shakey at the moment) leadership position?
And for the record Republicans don’t generally “hate” welfare reciepents. I think if you caught them in a moment of calm that most republicans would admit that a safety net for the poorest of the poor is a desireable thing. What they hate is how that system has been twisted and abused. I think that there may be common ground with your worldview there.
Regards
Steve Ducharme | Oct 14, 2009 | Reply
Young Nazis Trained By Our Tax Dollars!
To those with a warmongering mentality this is an efficient way of operating! See here.
To those with sensibilities who find it alarming to think of citizens as potential soldiers this is evidence that the economic terrorists who make up the inner circle of the unConstitutional coup in the United States are unAmerican. They think like and act like Nazis. Their fascist take-overs of segments of industry, their total control of the media, and their propaganda about needing to expand all over the world resembles Nazism.
The Constitution is the only way to put a halt to this unConstitutional coup. It is within our power and it is our responsibility to demand a return to a Constitutional Republic and part of that means restoring State rights while at the same time pruning the powers at the Federal level since it is that nationalism that leads to Nazism.
Bruce Koerber | Oct 14, 2009 | Reply
Mr. Higgs,
You understand the concept of individual thought vs. state-forced thought too well, too many do not, as always keep up the good work.
Mike G | Oct 14, 2009 | Reply
Thanks for an excellent post, Mr. Higgs.
They say you shouldn’t wake a sleepwalker, but the fact that we have a country full of them demonstrates the urgent need to ignore that rule. I’d much rather wake one up and risk his wrath or my own personal injury, when the only alternative is to just watch him walk off a cliff.
Like the addict in denial, the sleepwalking masses just can’t bring themselves to admit they’ve been had for their entire lives by a completely artificial political paradigm that counts on division of the people for its continued survival. The stagnant system needs to be shocked big time. This country needs to have hard truth like this shoved in its face repeatedly.
Keep up the great work.
John Perry | Oct 14, 2009 | Reply
Could you please offer just one example of a Republican or leading conservative pundit who ever encouraged others to “… hate welfare recipients”? Just one will do for that rather specific charge. I agree that the main emotions of liberals and the Democrat Party are anger and hatred. But I personally don’t see anything that rises to that level among Republicans and/or conservatives. Maybe you’ve observed something else. Please enlighten us.
Caliban | Oct 14, 2009 | Reply
One of my favorite authors, Robert Heinlein, put it very similarly:
“Political tags—such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth—are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.”
There is no hope of reform of our present system. It can only grow larger until it collapses of its own weight and inertia. It will, eventually, and something new (hopefully smaller and more free, but not necessarily) will reorganize in its aftermath. Unfortunately, a lot of innocent people will get caught in the wreckage. This is inevitable and there is plenty of historical precedent: the Roman empire, the Napoleonic empire, the Austro-Hungarian empire, the British empire…actually, anything with “empire” in its name (including the U.S. empire.)
I’ll close with one more Heinlein quote:
“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”
Rand | Oct 14, 2009 | Reply
Dr. Higgs has stated the obvious that seems invisible to most others. Politics is a very successful scheme in the sense he identifies, namely for those who have the chutzpah to receive services without rendering any. When enough od the others open their eyes to this fact, the scheme will be abandoned.
Al Lowi | Oct 14, 2009 | Reply
Professor Higgs,
I am a supporter of the ideas you generally express in your writings and I first heard of you quite awhile ago on the Cafe Hayek website where the hosts of that site introduced you to me by linking your writings on The Great Depression and in particular where you convincingly pointed out that WWII really did not end the depression as wide conventional wisdom holds. I completely agree with your arguments to that end. As to one point, it seems obvious that a rapid drop in unemployment caused by conscription for a war that breaks and bombs productive assets accompanied by rationing caused shortages of things needed for daily life and production does not increase the overall standard of living.
In regards to today’s article though, if one accepts as a given that small d democratic politics is as Harry Truman I think said, “is the worst system in the world except for the alternatives”, then it is the system we have and the one with which we must work to achieve our ends in our society.
Therefore, I am not sure what purpose you serve by making a moral equivalence between the two parties because neither comes close to living up to your ideals. Your ideals btw as I understand them are very similar to my own. When I was a young man I remember once voting for the Libertarian candidate in the election between Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford because I had convinced my self that both parties were equally awful in pursuing the implementation of my libertarian principals. I consider that vote a mistake and a marker of my youth, inexperience and lack of knowledge of how the world actually works. (Note: In the previous election I voted for Carter because my head was still full of mush allowing me to be swayed by his sweet talk and partly because of being totally repulsed by the idiocy of Gerald Ford’s WIN buttons which completely convinced me he was either a liar or and idiot.) Now 35 years later, I long ago learned that not rejecting the lesser of evils while working for the ideal is a far better solution than wasting my vote on a lost cause that more closely aligns with my views. That particular election where I voted Libertarian should be example enough of the folly of that course.
I belong to no political parties and always vote for the ideals of freedom and free markets, however I almost always vote Republican because in my lifetime there has usually been no contest as to which party favors our ideals the most, and that sir seems to be almost universally the Republicans.
I am as repulsed as anyone at the site of a Republican bringing home the bacon for a favored constituent or clamoring for longer sentences for ghetto drug users and other victimless crimes. I agree that the Democrats in general hate the legal entities known as corporations, but I know lots of Republicans and I don’t know any who hates welfare recipients as you inferred that most do. Most like me feel that most welfare recipients are victims responding to the absurd incentives of a misguided socialist state, not an object of hate. Most also have a much less of a desire to tell others how to live their lives I don’t know any Republican’s that hate anyone. I wish I could say the same for many Democrats I know and the ones I hear talking daily on the national scene. Did you read of Nobel winner Paul Krugman accusing some of he fellow well know economist of moral failure? I don’t recall and equivalent on the so called Right.
There is of course no way to ever have a blind controlled study to figure the alternative outcomes of a national election, but I know lots of small l libertarians who made the moral equivalent argument you are making before the last national election, who are now having deep pangs of regret. Sometimes for fun I go over to Reason’s website, where they publish the author’s votes, just to rub it in for the those misguided fools who are publicly and honestly acknowledging such regrets. In my opinion McCain was the worst possible choice the Republican party could have put forward for the last election in terms of reaching the ideals that you and I favor. He would though have to have been much worse before I would have rejected him for his cultural and economic Marxist opponent. I think both would have led us further down Hayek’s proverbial Road to Serfdom, however I would much prefer going there slowly while working to turn it around to jumping off a cliff, which is what it seems we are doing now and which seemed the obvious choice before the election.
The bottom line is that I think your moral and economic equivalence argument, whether intended or not, is juvenile and somewhat reduces the great admiration I had for you prior to reading this article.
I hope you reconsider before you lead any of your admirers astray or give any more ammunition to the arguments of the Marxist. In the last election the Marxist won the argument and the contest with just such and argument.
Tom of the Missouri | Oct 14, 2009 | Reply
You make a good point that I never considered as part of the psychology of a time that leads to the proponents of an idea discrediting the ideals w/merit by using them as a facade for perpetrating evil.
If only the same will happen to the empire and its apparatchiks, and happen soon.
cuddletuffy | Oct 14, 2009 | Reply
1. Can “hatred of welfare recipients” instead be “understanding that too robust safety nets become crutches, magnets for free riders or worse government sanctioned and taxpayer funded mechanisms for weaking or infantalizing people?” This is not to mention the morality or lack thereof of forcing some members of society to foot the bills of others.
2. Can there be justification for warfare? Abolition of slavery? Elimination of mass murderers and their followers? Attempted prevention of mass murder? Liberation? It would seem that the moral analysis may not be so simple.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Regards, Jim
James Bradley | Oct 15, 2009 | Reply
The growth of government forces us to pay attention to people who lack any accomplishments in life other than loudly proclaiming that their personal opinions must be codified in law so that we will bend to their will. Who in their right minds would ever trust any of them, Barack Obama included, with a key to their house to water plants while on vacation? But the growth of government forces us to hang on the every word of these megalomaniacs. Every idiot has his ill-thought out plan to save the world–all of which involve using the coercive power of the state to force us to do something that we just plain do not want to do–but the professional politician worms his way into the seats of power and, in conjunction with like-minded megalomaniacs, imposes his stupid ideas on the entire country. That is the essence of 90% of what government actually does.
Patrick Barron | Oct 15, 2009 | Reply
Having digested this for a day now I have a question. What would your ideal political system look like taking into account the basic need for group identity that seems to be ingrained in all (most?) of us?
Another commentor mentioned that you come off as a crumudgon and to a certain extent I agree. There is a lot of human nature simply glossed over in your world view. Maybe a little social science intermingled with economics is a great idea. On that note, I say good for the Nobel committee on their choice this year.
Regards,
Steve Ducharme | Oct 15, 2009 | Reply
Seems to me the two party system we have in the U.S. grew out of the early experience of the founders, has served us well ever since.
Full flowering is the neighborhood caucus, which we in Colorado share along with Iowa and a few other states.
The Rocky Mountain News (RIP) took an editorial position against our caucus system when Amendment 29 in 2002 set out to kill it. I think this had a bit to do with the demise of the paper. They then sent a reporter to Iowa to dig up the dirt, he end up praising it.
Christopher Hull’s careful research in Grassroots Rules—How the Iowa Caucus Helps Elect American Presidents (Stanford, 2008) shows how the caucus system neutralizes the effect of big money. Seems to me it also neutralizes the effect of academics, maybe that’s why the author of this article hates the system and then, it just now occurs to me, projects his hatred onto those who are involved.
John Wren | Oct 15, 2009 | Reply
Perhaps there is hope…Independent registrations are outpacing Dems and Repubs by 2-1. Maybe people are finally figuring out that we serve the two-headed snake regardless of whether it has a “D” or “R”.
azcIII | Oct 15, 2009 | Reply
You sound like Andy Rooney.
kolef88 | Oct 15, 2009 | Reply
I didn’t know the Independent Institute hired Ralph Nader.
Conn Carroll | Oct 16, 2009 | Reply
Steve Ducharme:
re: “If the world is full of scandalous governments (ours included) then how has our nation managed to somehow rise to a (albeit shakey at the moment) leadership position?”
Because we built the greatest military force the world has ever seen. And we USE IT. Aggressively. When you make it habit of incinerating hundreds of thousands of human beings from the sky you tend to get your way. We are to the modern era what Rome was in its heyday. And we are committing the very same mistakes.
The United States like Rome focused its economic energy on the individual. It became a trading power for the very same reasons The United States became an industrial giant. Foreign entanglements (Empire) and massive centralized government brought down Rome. The very same things will bring down The United States.
We may remain intact. We may keep chugging down the road for the rest of my life the way we always have but what was America at its founding is gone.
BTW the Michael Moore- Bob Higgs shot is rather cheeky. How is Mr. Higgs different? Umm Bob Higgs is not an out-and-out propagandist bent on making films worthy of Reifenstahl.
As one who tried the political party thing and came to the same conclusion as Higgs I find the piecemeal arguments such as welfare pointless. I for one do not think “a safety net for the poorest of the poor is a desirable thing” if it comes from the gunvernment. Thanks, but I’ll pass. It only encourages them to eventually come up with some fool idea like national healthcare. Sorry but my liberty is much more important than your good idea. And so is your liberty.
Peace, Keith Snyder, The People’s Republik of New York
Keith Snyder | Oct 17, 2009 | Reply
RE: muirgeo: “No in fact you benefit from one of the best forms of governments in spite of all the problems.”
I’m just wondering what form of government you are referring to. The American confederacy of the 18th century, the constitutional republic of the 19th century, the centralized rep. democracy of the 20th century, or perhaps the imperial presidency of the 21st?
zim | Oct 17, 2009 | Reply
The great error, I believe, of most Libertarians, is to think that the politicians and/or the masses are ignorant or stupid. They aren’t. They are dishonest and predatory. The system we have is the one they want. The majority are fat and happy. They do not care about good and evil. They do not care about any minority. They care about saving face and getting their share. They do not care about justice, only winning. They believe deeply in individual rights when they are about to be lynched and just as deeply in majority rule when they wish to lynch someone. We do indeed have government of, by, and for the people. But the people mostly stink, so government does too. This is a Christian nation and its symbol is a hideous and primitive nailed up body. Sacrifice is a virtue to be preached and a fate to be avoided. Run for the hills. Politics is a progressive desease and a terminal one.
The constitution is a detailed plan to plant the seeds of a national ruling class. Seeds grow. If you do not like oak trees, do not plant acorns. If you don’t like today, do not yearn to return to the constitution of yesterday. Eliminate the ruling class. We need a few rules, but no rulers. Power corrupts. The constitution gives power to the few. They are corrupt. Always.
JOHN READING | Oct 17, 2009 | Reply
Cry about it, Trent!
Matt | Oct 17, 2009 | Reply
I am of two minds about this. On the one hand, I am envious of Bob Higgs’ prose, and of his ability to articulate my feelings better than I myself can. I am always uplifted when I read the truth put elegantly, even if it is a hard truth.
On the other hand, I am positively dejected to learn how many people — even those who are independent minded enough to read a blog like this — are stuck in such childish modes of thinking that they would actually come out swinging against Bob on the grounds that we have just a super government compared to all the others, blah blah blah.
If that’s the argument that even some in Nock’s Remnant are making, then the fat lady hasn’t merely sung — she’s now a rotting corpse.
Tom Woods | Oct 17, 2009 | Reply
Wilt, your respect for Mr. Higgs is only excelled by your insightful and delightful sense of humor. I love your comment. Thank you!
Dan Glovak | Oct 18, 2009 | Reply
But Trent, you could shrink the government very easily. Quit.
Joe | Oct 18, 2009 | Reply
Dr. Higgs,
Your view that people should become Independents because the REAL issues are “X” (fill in the blank), not “Y” (fill in the blank) is common among Independents. Well, the majority of Americans consider “Y” are the real issues, proving you Independents wrong. Even if Independents are correct regarding their views on issues “X”, (not that they are the REAL issues, but that they ARE issues, and I think most people agree that they ARE issues), how do you get people to move away from considering “Y” the REAL issues? The answer is simple. Americans must agree on “Y” before they will consider “X”. In other words, the two-party system is God’s judgment on a nation of sinners that cannot agree that (for example) an unborn baby is a unique human individual (redundant for emphasis) as is well known to science, and that it is therefore immoral to kill that baby. And don’t tell me morality doesn’t enter into politics, when the whole point of this column is morality.
Rev. Robert Bunger | Oct 18, 2009 | Reply
I wouldn’t say there’s ‘hate’ among the politicians, so much as it exists more among the journalists/pundits/people. I think the people of the US are becoming more and more polarized (even violently so), while it’s needless because the politics of both parties have been converging for years. It’s the perfect *illusion* of choice.
Jamie | Oct 19, 2009 | Reply
Saturday, October 17, 2009
From: Joseph B. Ryan
13311 West Paintbrush Drive
Sun City West, Arizona 85375
To: Senator John Kyl
via EXPRESS MAIL on Oct. 17, 2009
730 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-0304
Subject: The “War” in Afghanistan and our “mission” in Afghanistan.
Dear Senator Kyl:
I just received your letter dated October 2, 2009. You mentioned the name President Bush gave to our military activities in Afghanistan, “Operation Enduring Freedom”. Most Americans keep referring to what we are carrying on as a “war”. I do not recall our legislature declaring “war” on Afghanistan. My recollection of what caused our forces to enter Afghanistan was a CIA or NSA or DIA report that Osama Bin Laden went there after the U.S. State Department denied refugee Bin Laden a visa to come to the United States where many of his relatives were living in the Boston area. When I was based in Ethiopia, I found that the CIA, NSA, and DIA were incompetent. They had everything to lose if the other side were successful in having trigger men overthrow the government of His Imperial Majesty, Emperor Haile Selassie. At that time, I was the System Director – Planning and International Affairs of Ethiopian Airlines (ET).
The other side had Eastern European intermediates arm and train trigger men to attack ET. None of those “INTELLIGENCE” bureaucracies warned us when we were going to be attacked – from Madrid, from Frankfurt, from Pakistan, for examples. The small intelligence organization of Israel, Mossad, told us that one of ET’s Boeing 707s was going to be hijacked the following week. The following week, the Spanish airport security personnel did not stop two armed passengers, one a first class passenger and the other a coach passenger, from boarding our flight from Madrid to Rome to Athens and on to Addis Ababa. When the would-be hijackers began their operation to take over the 707, our security men killed both of them.
Our intelligence bureaucracies had a communications base, called “Kagnew Station”, in northern Ethiopia. Kagnew Station was under the orbits of satellites that also orbited over Russia. The CIA had everything to lose in Ethiopia if the Amhara government were overthrown by Ethiopians OF OTHER TRIBES and a far-to-the-left communist government, called “The Dergue”, were put in charge. For lack of intelligence, 60 Ethiopian leaders, including two members of ET’s Board of Directors, were picked up and shot during one night in 1974. One of my former subordinates was picked up, jailed and then beaten to death. Since then, there have been many examples of Osama Bin Laden’s grievances, and The Group’s (Al Qaeda’s) several hints that U.S. military forces should be pulled out of their Holy Land. Evidently, the CIA missed all of the hints.
Senator Kyl, what do you mean by “My guess is that success against the Taliban and al Qaeda…” ? I hope you are not indicating that you believe our military forces’ enemies are two very different organizations, an INTERNATIONAL religious group and a now INTERNATIONAL group of men who think one of Osama Bin Laden’s original objectives was appropriate. Senator, how do you think Roman Catholics would feel if armed forces of Canada, for example, were occupying their Holy Land, setting up just one tiny base in the Vatican? And that is just one of the motivations of the very small group of Saudis, The Group, to plan and carry out the 4 hijackings on 9/11.
Now, the ill-conceived counter attacks of U.S. military forces, including the missile that the U.S. Air Force dropped on a Chinese embassy facility in Belgrade, the missile that the U.S. Navy sent into Sudan’s only pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, the hundreds of U.S.-built missiles that the I.D. F. guided from U.S.-built fighter/bombers into Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, killing thousands of Lebanese and Arab civilians. Evidently, the U.S. intelligence organizations do not follow very basic policies of most intelligence units, they are to check the sources of their information and then to double-check the information with other sources. Because our military personnel failed to follow those normal rules, attacking homes where someone told them there were “insurgent leaders”, there are millions of Iraqi displaced persons and even more millions of Iraqi refugees. They all hate Ambassador Bremer who – through ignorance – destabilized Iraq, the American military and the American government. Senator Kyl, when will we overhaul our “intelligence” bureaucracies?
Your list of achievements with $40 billion dollars has not made it safe for an American to drive on the main road between the two main Afghan cities. We cannot, and should not, set up a military “out post” in any part of Afghanistan. Eight Americans were killed at one such outpost last week. Our puppet President of Afghanistan has no control over the actual mini-governments of the War Lords in northern Afghanistan. The Taliban now control large portions of the south. It appears that our government has gained little from our taxpayers’ investment in Afghanistan of nearly 40 billion dollars.
When are American Senators and Representatives going to wake up and smell the poppies? You did not list a single small or large business that our government has “arranged” to be created in Afghanistan. After World War II, with five Dakotas that were at Cairo, enroute from Burma to the USA, TWA personnel helped recruit and train poor Ethiopians how to operate a profitable airline by 1971! Now, Ethiopians not only manage their airline, they also fly the latest American-made jet transports and overhaul the airframes, components and engines at ET’s Addis Ababa base! That proves Africans, and Middle Easterners, and western Asians all can be trained to run complex businesses – PROFITABLY ! They may also purchase American-made equipment. We need that !
Page 2 of 3.
People all over the earth want peace. In my dictionary, war is a state of open, armed conflict carried on between nations. I do not recall the government of Afghanistan declaring war against the United States. What do you think Afghans think when they read American reports about the “Afghanistan war”? We are known around the world as a dangerous, militaristic nation that attacks nations on false premises. That’s very sad.
I would like to join the USAID and help stabilize the Middle East and western Asia without additional military forces. As we agree upon bilateral government and bilateral commercial agreements to establish Share Companies throughout the regions, those peoples will respect Americans and even love Americans. Those are the feelings of Africans for the TWA personnel who trained Ethiopians and went home to the USA. I was asked by Sudanese to help their national airline. Unfortunately, neither the State Department nor the Treasury Department would give me permission to travel to Khartoum. Their policies are counter-productive and will guarantee China will get much of the petroleum products that we now import from the Middle East, Africa, western Asia and central America. They are setting the USA up an economic disaster in the future.
I would appreciate your recommending this 76-year-old for employment by State.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Joe Ryan
Joseph B. Ryan
Page 3 of 3.
Joseph B. Ryan | Oct 19, 2009 | Reply
Whoa!!! You are above all this? Your diatribe offers no hope for the rest of as you disparage a decent system of government that needs grass roots intervention now. Why not roll up your sleeves and come down here with the rest of us who are trying to right this ship of state? Instead, you act like Obama, who also sees himself loftily detached above the herded masses. I trust you two will enjoy each others company.
Joe Derk | Oct 21, 2009 (5 weeks ago) | Reply
Thomas Jefferson not so famously said that the land belongs to the living generation and that there should be new constitutions developed every 19 yrs. this idea was criticized by his colleague Madison who sat through and documented the laborous process of the constitutional convention, but the fed gov does not follow its own restrictions and Hamilton’s obtuse interpretation of the general welfare clause has lead us to the machine which oppresses us all today.
the ebb and flow of the rise an fall of the 2 big government parties in the USA is a powerful distraction. monopoly over education and other institutions was destined to create a naiive populus. it appears the walls will have to tumble before there is a renewed spark for liberty that sets the people free. it is only a matter of what the world will look like because I doubt the fed gov will go down quietly.
tom | Oct 21, 2009 (5 weeks ago) | Reply
Be wise, be educated, but don’t live your life for the things of this world. Placing trust in human leaders will always lead to disappointment and disgust. God is sovereign over all of this.
LDD | Oct 21, 2009 (5 weeks ago) | Reply