The Golden Gate

Tragic. The US government nationalizing and bailing out major financial institutions it helped to destoy...

I am a libertarian. To contrast this with Democrat and
Republican: we might say that the Republicans (at their core) want the
government to stay out of our financial lives, but control what we do in
our bedrooms (morality/religion). Democrats (at their core) want the
government out of our bedrooms, but control how we manage our financial
affairs (welfare/regulation/wealth redistribution). Libertarians want
the government out of our financial lives and out of our bedrooms.
Libertarians stand for the individual rights to life, liberty, and
pursuit of happiness according to our own conscience. They believe that
the purpose of government is to protect the freedom and rights of
citizens through a police force to protect us from the initiation of
force by other citizens, court system to protect us from fraud (enforce
contracts), and a military force to protect us from foreign invaders.

The libertarian stance on foreign aggression is: commerce with all
nations, alliances with none.  Libertarians not only want us out of
Iraq, they want us out of Japan! (and our other 800+ military bases
around the world!)  Let them hate us for our freedom and wealth, without
the military presence/force that forces that freedom and wealth down their
throats.

My reasons for being libertarian are simple. I believe that history has
demonstrated (in every time. and in every part of the globe) that the
more power you give to government, the more those who hold the power
will be corrupted by lobbyists (business, religious, bankers, racists,
populists, etc.).  As PJ O'Rourke put it, "When buying and selling are
controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are
legislators."  The more money and favors/regulations the government
controls, the more money and favors the lobbyists can afford to spend to
buy them, because (although it is somewhat of a gamble) the return on
investment for lobbying is typically 10 to 1. As a lobbyist, I can spend
$50 million dollars influencing various politicians in order to get a
$500 million dollar annual contract, and $1 billion to get $100 billion
contract. Smart business always follows the clearest incentives, and
competing for government largess is clearly incentived.
People/politicians are corruptible (especially through blackmail, which
money buys easily), and so governments become corrupt. The solution is
to reduce government power to reduce the scope and destructiveness of
its corruption and keep it maximally accountable to its core functions.
Hence, Libertarianism.

The American Constitution/experiment, was created by men whom, by todays
standards, are radical Libertarians, for the exact reasons stated above.
I believe that they created the most beautiful social contract in human
history, and I find it tragic that it is being increasingly ignored and
distorted. I am patriotic in this sense: I believe that the ideals and
values of life, liberty/freedom, protection of our right to use our
property according to our own conscience (as long as we are not
violating the identical rights of others) are worth cheering about and
if necessary, fighting to maintain.

Some of you may have seen the post by Deepak Chopra about Sarah Palin, in which he psycho-eviscerates those who find value or some type of agreement with the positions she takes. 

Upon reading it several times, I became progressively dismayed, although fascinated by the clarity with which it typifies “green/Boomeritis” arrogance, including the hypocrisy and self-refuting logic at its heart. This article examplifies a common stance taken by those whom I consider the most politically active people in my life. My opinion, which I offer reasons for below, is that it expresses a fundamentally dishonest and destructive perspective that is at the heart of much of the “transformational” community’s conversation about politics.

Specifically, it is built on a narrative that claims/implies that it is inclusive and integrative (2nd tier, in Spiral Dynamics terms) , but is deeply self-absorbed and parochial (1st tier), and hence blind to its blindness.

It is written as if it is the only rational perspective possible, as if Deepak (and by extension Obama, or the reverse) are so right that there is no need for conversation about the accuracy of their propositions and conclusions, only about how to deal with them. This marginalizes all the values of people they disagree with - the very thing that their stance accuses all other perspectives of.

Deepak (and those who agree with and write similar pieces) pretend as if the “ground” that he is standing on and writing from represents an “enlightened/superior/higher” perspective BECAUSE it includes more information than its competing perspectives (in this case, conservatives like Palin). However, he demonstrates no understanding of the people he is critiquing. In place of understanding, he creates a straw man that burns so easily they he feels the need to apologize for how cruel he must seem to destroy his opponent so utterly. It is as if his opponent is so obviously wrong he doesn’t even need to establish the verity of his points, all there is left to do talk about their consequences…

Examples: In almost every sentence, he speaks an an unquestionable authority, and with a tone that indicates that disagreement is a sign of the stupidity that he is decrying (and, as it is said, you can’t argue with a sneer):

- Impulses that are different than those He (Barack and Deepak) promotes are “their worst impulses.”
- BECAUSE He calls people to “higher impulses,” Palin’s responses and values (and others who disagree with Obama’s policies) can by DEFINITION be simplified to “anger, fear, revenge, violence, selfishness, and suspicion of “the other” , and hence written off as unworthy of consideration or inclusion.
- “Small town values” become “a denial of America’s global role, a return to petty, small-minded parochialism.” - (What the hell?)
- “Family values” become “anti social justice.” (Huh?)
- Patriotism becomes “a fallback from a failed war.” (I know my patriotism is sourced from this…)
- her political position, including all of the changes she wants to make becomes “I’m all right, Jack,” and “Why change? Everything’s OK as it is.” - (of course, to disagree with someone who wants a specific change is to be against change in general. I knew that…)

He says: “there are millions of women who stand on the side of conservatism, however obviously they are voting against their own good. ” Well, if it is so obvious, why can’t they see it? because they are stupid? because they are victims of patriarchal bourgeoisie values (which they are too stupid to go beyond)? How about because they believe that feminism is a postmodern movement that is nihilistic in nature, substance, and rhetoric, and proposes ideals that conservatives like Palin believe are destructive and soul-deadening to living, breathing people? Such a response is simply not a possible legitimate stance to take in this article. It does not exist as a possiblity in Deepak’s world.

This is the hypocrisy. Lack of understanding leads to projection of the enemy onto Palin - against which Deepak establishs his hero stature, which stature is supposedly integrated, compassionate, and wise.  All bullshit.

AND, the intellectual elite of the country and the political left do not even question or challenge him. This article has been sent to me by 4 different people - more than any other political article yet this election cycle. All of them have included positive or self-congratulatory introductions to it. None have mentioned its utter arrogance. So, here I am…

Jason Alexander (the philosopher of capitalism, not the actor), used to chide me, saying “Remember, people get the government they deserve. If the people are unWholeSum, the government will be unWholeSum.” I have spent the last decade losing my will to try to prove him wrong.  Welcome to election year 2008.  

This article is even more painful for me because I have severe concerns about the conservative side of this issue as well. However, an enemy of my enemy is rarely my friend, just as two wrongs don’t make a right, and someone disagreeing with someone who is wrong is not thereby correct.

Sad times for the most beautiful political experiement/culture in history - the American Revolution of Self-Responsibility and Individual Rights.