West, Sowell and the Government Corruption of Markets and The Direction of the Campaign

An article at Townhall by Diana West, discusses the largely unreported facts of government involvement and manipulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And, here is a link to an article at NR Online by Thomas Sowell, relative to the same subject:

Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.

A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.

But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.

Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.

The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.

McCain-Palin And What Conservatism Means

A friend who was a fellow Huckabee supporter left a few comments about McCain and Palin. The first few raised questions about McCain playing more to the right, so as to lose the Independent and conservative Democrat support he once enjoyed, and also questioning Palin’s record on “values” issues. I have heard these sorts of remarks before, usually from the Democratic left. Actually, though sometimes I wish he would and still hope he will, McCain has not recanted on any of his supposedly moderate positions that defy conservative orthodoxy, save for offshore drilling, and I doubt the doubling of gas prices is incidental to that. He has always expressed a pro-life disposition. He has always been one of the biggest spending hawks in The Senate, even confronting his own party and if Republicans retook Congress, I don’t think that would stop. And, he has NEVER supported a tax-increase. Some report his support for continuing the “Bush” tax-cuts, since he originally voted against them. As he often explains, he voted against the tax cuts because despite his warnings, they were not offset with spending cuts.

Anyone who really starkly regards his support for continuing a lowered tax rates, as a turnabout from his insistence on spending cuts at the beginning, has a very unrefined view of economics, as most Democrats do, assuming they are sincere. At bottom, economic principles and incentives are about human nature. Taxes and spending should both be cut, but to discontinue a tax reduction is to support what will be a tax increase and the related reactions of human nature. Evidence of the psychological component of human nature is that Bull Clinton increased tax increases while pursuing free trade and other reforms that managed to maintain the positive outlook and healthy economy that many conservatives would have expected to be injured.

I have also seen questions from the left about Palin having cut ostensibly good (when they are passed, aren’t they all?) But, a seemingly worthy objective f a program is no guard whatsoever against wasteful and inefficient consumption of resources. For a large example, any true student of The Constitution understands that national defense is a primary responsibility of the federal government. Yet anyone over forty who has paid attention recalls stories of outlandish expenses on defense department items. John McCain was a third-generation member of the military in his family (his sons are a 4th generation) and a defense hawk. Yet he has opposed unnecessarily extravagant defense spending. Many decades ago, General Eisenhower who saw the Word War ii victory, warned against the growth and appetite of the “military-industrial complex.”

Whether an ostensive objective is worthwhile or not, we are after all, talking about federal government bureaucracies, about which conservatives are rightly guarded. Coming from a social conservative, these expressed concerns sound like an expression of the reported expanded agenda of social conservatives these days. We can debate which interest the federal government should pursue and how those interests might be effectively addressed. But, it’s never wise to be unwatchful of ANY government program. And, to fall into the popular culture measure of concern and expression for a nominal cause based on the number or percentage of dollars spent is a critical mistake, Based on what I’ve seen, I’m more inclined to see Palin having worked to squeeze waste of taxpayers’ dollars, wherever possible, the ostensive cause notwithstanding. I’m sorry, but to ascribe indifference to an individual based on prudence in investments is a misguided and crude way to view things, however popular it may be.

A third comment more directly raised a feeling of discomfort with Sarah Palin. In fact, I saw a very positive report today, from one polling organization. But regardless, here’s the comment and response:

“Weren't you just a bit disturbed by Palin's speech last night, and the almost total lack of addressing issues? Obama listed the issues out, cited facts that pointed to the problem, and offered a solution to each one. Palin resorted to attacks, defensiveness, and left me wondering if she even believes there are problems with the economy, or the war, or if she lives in the same world we do. I was disappointed, not only with the content, but with the resorting to attacks, which is almost an admission that you don't have anything to talk about.”

I certainly wouldn't describe myself as "disturbed" about Sarah Palin's speech. Although, I would have been happy if she could have made persuasive points while perhaps being a tad less "tart." But, generally, I am very taken with her.

I'd like to clarify what you are thinking, and let me clarify myself.

A visceral reaction might wonder if you only differ with Obama on social issues, as of course do I. But, I want to be clear about on what things I agree with Obama. Interpret rhetoric how you will. But, in terms of policy I agree with Obama on precisely NOTHING.

I frequently have to engage accusations or insinuations that I am a "one issue voter," because I think the respect and protection of human life is a primary value of a civil society. It isn’t ONLY about dead babies, which historically God has always dealt with. But, a society that behaves with disregard for this primary value is infected with a "Sickness unto Death," as Kierkegaard described the more general human existential condition. Civility is driving on cruise control on the path to social destruction: conscience is in a decline that will be manifest in myriad expressions of social conduct.

But because I see abortion as an extreme and paradigmatic expression of social illness, does not mean that I am a "one issue voter." As I have repeatedly explained, I have been conservative as long as I have been conscious. Politics does not matter to me ONLY because abortion offends me. You are my age: I did not just come to conservatism because of Roe v. Wade and the social activism that was injected into the Reagan campaign.

People talk about social, economic, and defense conservatives. I was conservative before "social" conservatism existed. At bottom, it has to do with my convictions about human nature and practical treatment of it.

NOW, a popular caricature of conservatism is that it implies hostility or indifference to other human beings. Also given human nature, there naturally ARE people like that. But, that has NOTHING to do with conservative philosophy. That's why I felt so strongly about Huckabee: he emphatically expressed the opposite idea, while at the same time acknowledging those elements of human nature that made him become a Republican in the first place.

More specifically, if I believed that the prescriptions advocated by the left would actually help people, I would favor them. But, it isn't adequate to say that I don't believe that. I KNOW that the underlying propositions are false and the programs themselves are not only unhelpful, they are destructive. AND, THEY ARE MOST DESTRUCTIVE TO THE PEOPLE THEY PRESUME TO HELP!

On one end, they dampen the initiative for improving one's own life circumstance. On the other end, they constrict opportunity in the society in general. It's a double-whammy. This imperishable idea that we are going to help those without by taxing those with is, to use a more innocuous word, twaddle. You will never punish successful people by taxing them 5, 10, or even 50 percent more. The very wealthy will not miss one glass of wine, one luxury car, or one world-traveling vacation. No, what dies is the money that is invested into the economy that opens new opportunities for those less fortunate. Envy is not good for the soul OR FOR THE BODY! The world was created that way.

So, it doesn't matter what Obama lists or talks about or advocates. NONE OF IT WILL HELP! I don't know the man, personally, so I can't and should say what he thinks. But logically, I can say that if he believes what he says, he has breathed deeply of an academic unreality: it's foolishness. And obviously, if he DOESN'T believe what he's saying, he is a fraud and a manipulator: a charlatan.

Honestly, I still wish Huckabee were the nominee and HE had picked Palin. But, John McCain is not without compassion. His is just not as meticulous a mind. However, in the executive branch for the next four years, McCain-Palin may go farthest in undermining extravagance and corruption in Washington. We need to abandon the misguided impulses and construct new and positive ones.

I was also glad that Romney was not selected. In his latest incarnation, he plays that caricature of the aggravated conservative. We need a positive conservative like Huckabee. If Palin isn't already, I think with age she can become that.

Pro-Life Democrat Opposes Barack Obama And His Extreme Abortion Record

http://www.lifenews.com/nat3903.html

Pro-Life Democrat Opposes Barack Obama And His Extreme Abortion Record

I get reports from Life News, which published this. In fact, I have had several exchanges with Steven Ertelt, who reports Hentoff’s article at his http://www.lifenews.com/nat3903.html . Barack Obama’s extreme “pro-choice” record includes opposing a partial-birth abortion ban and twice opposing the Infant Born Alive (after a botched abortion) Protection Act in Illinois, which called on forbidding setting aside a live baby to die.

Hentoff’s actual article can be read at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff042408.php3

But, thanks to Stephen Maloney for alerting me to the article.

More Curses From The Damned And A Christmas Look At The Rebublican Presidential Candidates

Mike Huckabee appeared on CNN's Late Edition on Sunday, discussing the latest in the endless string of desperate accusations. The indefatigable Mr. Maloney screeches on, ever more shrill and clawing as his candidate sinks over the horizon. Giuliani started with just a media profile, and whatever profile they preserve for him is about all he has left. But, he raises an opportunity to discuss the Candidates for President of the United States, with Christmas just over a week away and the primary season less than 3 weeks away.

Stephen R. Maloney said...

It's true that I think Larry Perrault is a model of verbosity and dishonesty. If you cut through the endless layers of crap that he dispenses, you find an adult mimicking a two-year-old. Larry's point since the beginning has been: "My way or the highway," that is, if Mike Huckabee doesn't get the nomination, then I sit home with my pacifier and blanket. But at the same time he believes traditional Republicans, a group three times the size of the evangelical group has some sort of obligation to support Huckabee if he gets the nomination. Well, Larry, this is politics (imperfect as it is) rather than the theological absolutism you prefer. If Huckabee gets the nomination, he will perform about as well as Goldwater in the 1964 election, when Barry carried five states and got roughly 34% of the vote. Mike Huckabee seems to be a decent guy, but he is clueless about foreign policy and military affairs, which is rather an important limitation. In short, he's no Giuliani and no McCain.

Some of the people endorsing Huckabee, such as Dr. Laurence White of Houston and blogger Larry Perrault, are America-haters who have no comprehension of what it means to live in a diverse and free society. Basically, they're theocrats who would be more comfortable in John Calvin's era than in 21st century America.
As this becomes clear to people, the support for Huckabee will sink like a rock. Who would be a better President of the U.S., Mike Huckabee or Hillary Clinton? My frank view is that Mrs. Clinton would be far superior. That's a problem for Mike because I've never voted for a Democrat for President, and in all modesty, I believe I speak for a lot of people. I do predict, however, that Huckabee would carry Mississippi, although not Arkansas, New York, California, or Illinois. As the Rev. Rudes (and trust me, he is no along) and Larry Whites surface, Mike might have to start worrying about carrying Mississippi. Meanwhile, I wait for Larry Perrault to denounce his favorite pastor (and Mike's?), Dr. White, and his garbage-laden piece in "God and Caesar." If Mike agrees even in part with Dr. White, then what is he doing running for President of this country? To Larry in Houston, I ask: have you ever considered Venezuela?

Larry

Mr. Maloney, who showed up months ago as a nice guy, has gone all ugly now that his money (or whatever it is) horse has fallen from his perch even in his erstwhile "firewall" of Florida. Call me wrong, but if anything, I’m honestly wrong. I’m also not the slightest bit tempted to “correction” by Stephen Maloney. Man, you’re too old to act that way! Don’t meet God in a bitter snit! Oh, and though I haven’t seen him in a couple of years, Laurence White is always smiling and pleasant to speak with. But, this conversation raises the opportunity to take a look at the Republican presidential field, as it stands.

Maybe you want to take a look at Mitt Romney, Steve, who at this point still holds forth in New Hampshire, though he's flailing in Iowa, where he should get 2nd, but if he doesn't win Iowa, he WON"T win South Carolina or Florida or probably not even his papa's stomping grounds in Michigan. But, he looks better than Giuliani. And btw, I might vote for Romney if he wins, though it's looking like I won't have to face that awful choice. It's bad enough that he is just a political opportunist who uses polls as a tuning fork for his rhetoric. But, the really awful prospect is that he poses another eight years of relative inaction on restoring the American spirit: he has more than adequately demonstrated his incompetence in that regard. Romney would be another establishment Republican administrator. George H.W. Bush confessed that he wasn’t much on “the vision thing.” But even he had the substance of more integrity and resolve than Romney. But, Dick Morris said that Romney “doesn’t have a prayer in Hell of beating Hillary.” Maybe he could beat Barrack on resume and plain o’ life experience.

But, it’s correct that I WON”T be voting for Rudolph Giuliani for a job for which he is definitionally unqualified, but for which he looks unlikely to even attain an opportunity to contest a Democrat for. John McCain is also demonstrably philosophically opaque and unsuited to be the chief executive charged with protecting and defending The Constitution. But, it’s conceivable that he could finish strong in New Hampshire and the public forgive him and turn back to a known quantity after rejecting everyone else: in some ways, he looks more likely than Giuliani or Romney. But, I think he’s a good man and an honorable patriot and would be happy for Huckabee to give him a suitable post in an administration, which doesn’t seem unlikely. Fred Thompson is also philosophically ambiguous and one might raise the same question about whether he should be in an administration but…WHY and WHERE? Anyway, if he doesn’t gain a respectable 3^rd in Iowa, he can probably start looking for acting jobs, again.

??What is Rudy Giuliani's experience in foreign policy? I ask not because it’s such a sober question: it isn't. America has, in fact, elected mostly governors as president. Governors don't have the kind of "experience in foreign policy" that Maloney is talking about. It doesn't take this vague idea of "experience in foreign policy," which surely people have who are all over the map in terms of ideology and wisdom. It takes principle and resolve. In fact, probably the two 20th century presidents with the most resolute and successful accomplishments had none of this prior "foreign policy experience": FDR and Reagan. Neither did G.W. Bush or Bill Clinton.

Though Giuliani’s “foreign policy (in)experience” doesn’t dazzle me, he would rely on military strategists and thinkers like Norman Podhoretz, like any defense-responsible president would. (Come to think of it, Thompson might first need to hire someone to assemble a cabinet) Do you seriously think President Huckabee would leave the world untended and America undefended? In addition to McCain, he’s lean on people like Duncan Hunter and Frank Gaffney and others.

There are still 3 weeks for Romney, Giuliani, and McCain to smear Mike Huckabee with something that the public perceives as terrible and they will surely mightily try, so I won’t count them out, yet. At least it would be interesting to watch the Republican voters return to sniffing around the reject pile. Thompson looks like the longest shot, but his best chance might be if he’s the only remaining candidate that the voters can stomach. Hunter and Tom Tancredo I like some things about. But, they definitely lack a leadership quality for uplifting America that Mike Huckabee plainly has. Have you really not looked at the Democrat blogs and seen the expressions of either electoral fear or personal admiration, or are you just too proud to admit it? I have conversed with such people on the ‘net and in person. Huckabee definitely weakens one of the strongest sentimental motivations that Democrats have on their side: that Republicans are rich guys only looking out for rich guys. Never mind how true that sentiment is or isn’t. The perception is an indisputable reality. And, it is plainly untrue of Huckabee.

Oh, and what about Ron Paul? He has the money and the intensity (his own and his followers”), so that I don’t think he’s going away. But, I don’t see him getting less than 5% or more than 15%. Look for a melee from his followers at The Republican National Convention

I hope Huckabee faces Clinton, who has unprecedented negatives. There are a LOT of Democrats who wince at the prospect of voting for Hillary Clinton. Oh, well: at least she might have YOU. Hillary’s brightest potential is that her gender might draw out voters who otherwise wouldn’t vote. Otherwise she’d probably need a third-party or a great population of stay at home Republicans protesting social conservatism “stealing OUR party!”

Any Republican nominee would ride the youth and inexperience angle against Barack Obama, and appropriately so. Give him credit for belting out syntactically correct sentences. He needs them, because substantively, there isn’t a lot there.