Your Brain on Unity

[Ed Hudgins]

Your Brain on Unity

By Edward Hudgins

January 30, 2009 – President Barack Obama took office promoting the need for the country in general—and policy-makers in particular—to overcome petty differences and to unify to solve the nation’s serious problems.

But all differences are not petty. Surely anyone who truly wants to make the country better will need to define what, exactly, “better” is and to ask what the best means are to get there.

House Republicans asked some of these questions and showed rare unity in the week following Obama’s inauguration by voting against the $819 billion “stimulus” package. Even though it was supposed to create jobs and launch an economic recovery, all 177 Republicans, joined by 11 Democrats, opposed it. For almost any proposed bill each party usually can peel off at least a few votes from the other. Not so in this case.

The bill still passed with 244 votes, and you can bet that Obama will sign it into law as soon as the House and Senate can unite on one package.

So did the Republicans vote “nay” in unison for petty reasons? Or to embarrass the new president? Or to commit further political suicide by seeming to be insensitive to the plight of Americans, even as Obama soars with a nearly 70 percent approval rating?

Many Republicans rightly observed that the $750 billion Bush bailout bill, which many of them reluctantly and unfortunately supported last year, did little to stop the economic downturn. Further, many recipients used those taxpayer dollars to line their own pockets as their companies declined further: that’s wealth appropriation, not wealth creation.

Many Republicans observed that there is no evidence that the current bailout will do any better than the first one and that many of the package’s proposed projects will only start years in the future. That’s hardly a way to immediately create jobs.

Many Republicans worried about future inflation and other adverse economic consequences of this spending.

Many Republicans pointed out that the new bailout is full of pork, special handouts, and socialistic and market-restricting measures that will limit individual liberty in the long-run and be difficult to undo. The Wall Street Journal on January 28 called the package “A 40-Year Wish List” for including $1 billion for the government’s Amtrak trains (that have lost nearly a billion a year for four decades); $2 billion for child-care; $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, and on and on. You get the picture.

And some Republicans might point to the full-page ad on the same day in The New York Times, placed by the Cato Institute, which included a statement denouncing such spending. It was signed by hundreds of economists, including Nobel Prize winners uniting in disunity with the administration’s proposal.

In the face of the stimulus package, the Republicans seem to reject the call for unity in favor of using their brains, for a change, to ask about the consequences of the package they’re asked to vote for. It might seem like they are pointing out important facts that the Democrats haven’t thought about or considered fully. But that would not necessarily be an accurate analysis.

Obama and most Democrats surely know that this package might or might not help the economy in the short-run but it certainly will advance the statist agenda they’ve been pushing for decades. They know it will replace the freedom of individuals to run their own lives and spend their own money with the rule of arrogant, self-styled elites.

That’s why the rush to push the package through Congress so quickly, before its real intentions and effects can be exposed. And that’s why the rhetorical emphasis on unity.

“Unity” in this context means that defenders of freedom should go along to get along, that is, to surrender their principles and their independent judgment for the sake of—what?…the short-term approval of some of those who will be the victims of foolish policies in the long-term, policies that the victims will come to hate them for?...the approval of politicians who reject their ideals and would prefer that they shut up about them?

In 1965 Ayn Rand gave a speech entitled “The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus,” followed in 1967 by “The Wreckage of the Consensus.” In the former essay she discussed the nature of a mixed economy, which is what we have had for years and what should get the blame for our current economic mess rather than the non-existent unregulated free market.

She then wrote, “It is clear what sort of unity (of consensus) that game requires: the unity of a tacit agreement that anything goes, anything is for sale (or ‘negotiation’), and the rest is up to the free-for-all of pressuring, lobbying, manipulating, favor-swapping, public-relation’ing, give-and-taking, double-crossing, begging, bribing, betraying.”

What an accurate description of how Washington works today and of a system that creates the disunity of an eternal power struggle.

For most of the past eight years too many Republicans—and moderate Democrats as well—placed themselves in bondage to the idiotic mixed economy impulses of George W. Bush, impulses that grew the government, expanded its power, and then handed it over to the Democrats who are the real pros at running other people’s lives. Now as they are rubbing their wrists where those bonds used to be, these politicians who should have known better face the possibility of a new set of even heavier chains. Heeding the call for “unity” means binding themselves voluntarily and surrendering our freedom in the process.

Retaining their own independent judgment has at least given them and us a small chance to resist the further erosion of our liberties and to set the stage for us to regain the freedom we have lost. Let’s be thankful that Republicans have at long last taken a stand for what they should have stood for all along. And let’s remind them and anyone else who might be seduced by the word “unity” that this is a call to shut down our brains and to guarantee our enslavement.

-----

Hudgins is executive director and senior scholar at The Atlas Society.

For further reading:

Ayn Rand, “The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus” and “The Wreckage of the Consensus” in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

Edward Hudgins, “Will America Unite in OneObama?” December 29, 2008.

[Chris Grieb]

Ed; Excellent post!

[James Heaps-Nelson]

We need this kind of principled opposition to the current statist nightmare. However, we also need to look to tactical opportunities and focus on what we can do. The real killers have been Sarbanes-Oxley, global trade restrictions, biotechnology regulation, internet regulation and immigration restrictions. I see real opportunities to sway moderate Democrats and even Obama on these issues. The Republican party is hopelessly backward when it comes to technology and the Democrats are already going to shove big government down our throats.

The important part of our economy is yet to be created. New biotech diagnostics such as second generation DNA sequencers, genome analyzers; new wireless and mobile computing applications, next generation databases will be created. This will be done regardless of what the U.S. government does. The only choices the U.S. government has are about how fast it will happen and whether it will happen in the U.S. or elsewhere.

Jim

Edited January 31, 2009 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Selene]

Gentlemen:

Well written and reasoned Ed.

Two points, we are still focusing ourselves on the party political paradigm, which is the status quo, but we should be thinking about utilizing the technology James and I know exists and moving along referenda, community initiative votes and targeting the most local community political entity, particularly the Clerk of the Court positions.

Secondarily, the rate this marxist is moving at makes my blood is run cold. I am afraid Michael's hopes for O'Biwan's Presidency is not looking good.

Adam

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Gentlemen:

Well written and reasoned Ed.

Two points, we are still focusing ourselves on the party political paradigm, which is the status quo, but we should be thinking about utilizing the technology James and I know exists and moving along referenda, community initiative votes and targeting the most local community political entity, particularly the Clerk of the Court positions.

Secondarily, the rate this marxist is moving at makes my blood is run cold. I am afraid Michael's hopes for O'Biwan's Presidency is not looking good.

Adam

Adam's right and the liberty movement is stuck in a classical liberalism 1.0 paradigm. Let's embrace a world the big government advocates haven't found yet:

new technology and be the bold first adopters we should and could be.

Jim

[Barbara Branden]

An excellent post, Ed. Thanks for it. I could not agree more with your statement that:

"Obama and most Democrats surely know that this package might or might not help the economy in the short-run but it certainly will advance the statist agenda they’ve been pushing for decades. They know it will replace the freedom of individuals to run their own lives and spend their own money with the rule of arrogant, self-styled elites.

"That’s why the rush to push the package through Congress so quickly, before its real intentions and effects can be exposed. And that’s why the rhetorical emphasis on unity."

The same issue is involved in Obama and the Democrats' push for national health insurance. We are not the only ones who know its history in such countries as Britain and Canada; liberals know it , too. It is not a benevolent concern for the good health of Americans that animates the statists; it is the prospect of taking over the incredible achievements and the magnificent technology of the medical profession, and of substituting their decisions for the decisions of doctors who have given their lives to the study of their professions. As The Fountainhead's Gus Webb would say, "After all, they have a right to express their individuality, too, don't they?"

After Obama's election, I felt as close to hopelessness about this country's future as I've ever felt. But now I see a possible ray of hope. It may be that Republicans -- since at this point they have nothing to lose, and in the face of the disaster to which Obama is leading us -- will finally return to to the principles that once animated their party, and particularly to the defense of capitalism. And it might even happen that the controls Obama will establish, with their concomitant impoverishment of the country, will awaken the American voter to the fact that freedom is to his best interest, not entitlements and Big Brother. If both those things were to happen, then the long agony that faces us will have been worthwhile.

Barbara

[Selene]

Folks:

The problem is voting may not be meaningful. It may look like we all are voting, but the results may be pre-determined. Or in the interests of the National Crisis that we just declared, we are "postponing" the election for three months.

I know, it can't happen here!

Got it.

Adam

Adam

[James Heaps-Nelson]

The irony of all of this is that the current big government intervention will and has disproportionately hurt those big government advocates say they want to help: the poor, the poorly educated, middle class Americans with mortgages or nearing retirement, those with preexisting medical conditions etc. There is no free lunch and to the extent that people have voted for and advocated for big government controls: brother you asked for it.

To everyone else, stay out of debt, stay liquid, limit your exposure to housing, health care and higher education expenditures if possible and embrace the newest technologies. Big government mostly cares about businesses that are currently making big money.

Also, for all of the liberal pillorying of big oil, Exxon put in a remarkable year, highest profits ever, anticipation of oil price declines and concomitant modest production investments in the new environment: amazing and bravo!

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The irony of all of this is that the current big government intervention will and has disproportionately hurt those big government advocates say they want to help: the poor, the poorly educated, middle class Americans with mortgages or nearing retirement, those with preexisting medical conditions etc.

James,

Not to worry. They can always blame capitalism for it (as they talk over lunch at 5 star hotels).

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

The irony of all of this is that the current big government intervention will and has disproportionately hurt those big government advocates say they want to help: the poor, the poorly educated, middle class Americans with mortgages or nearing retirement, those with preexisting medical conditions etc.

James,

Not to worry. They can always blame capitalism for it (as they talk over lunch at 5 star hotels).

Michael

That's the thing about the Washington rich. They either know big government is a racket or they really believe it and keep ignoring reality and peddling folk economics. I'm not sure which is worse.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

An excellent post, Ed. Thanks for it. I could not agree more with your statement that:

"Obama and most Democrats surely know that this package might or might not help the economy in the short-run but it certainly will advance the statist agenda they’ve been pushing for decades. They know it will replace the freedom of individuals to run their own lives and spend their own money with the rule of arrogant, self-styled elites.

"That’s why the rush to push the package through Congress so quickly, before its real intentions and effects can be exposed. And that’s why the rhetorical emphasis on unity."

The same issue is involved in Obama and the Democrats' push for national health insurance. We are not the only ones who know its history in such countries as Britain and Canada; liberals know it , too. It is not a benevolent concern for the good health of Americans that animates the statists; it is the prospect of taking over the incredible achievements and the magnificent technology of the medical profession, and of substituting their decisions for the decisions of doctors who have given their lives to the study of their professions. As The Fountainhead's Gus Webb would say, "After all, they have a right to express their individuality, too, don't they?"

After Obama's election, I felt as close to hopelessness about this country's future as I've ever felt. But now I see a possible ray of hope. It may be that Republicans -- since at this point they have nothing to lose, and in the face of the disaster to which Obama is leading us -- will finally return to to the principles that once animated their party, and particularly to the defense of capitalism. And it might even happen that the controls Obama will establish, with their concomitant impoverishment of the country, will awaken the American voter to the fact that freedom is to his best interest, not entitlements and Big Brother. If both those things were to happen, then the long agony that faces us will have been worthwhile.

Barbara

Barbara,

You can hear conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck talk about capitalism being the only cure for the economy and being in danger all the time nowadays. It is becoming a theme song with them. I watch Fox News a lot and even the less well-known anchors are starting to talk openly about capitalism versus encroaching socialism. I even saw Beck do this on O'Reilly.

There is a saying that no man is useless. At the worst, he can be a good example of what not to be. Maybe President Obama can serve in this capacity in terms of the economy.

(btw - I agree with you about Ed's post.)

Michael

[Ed Hudgins]

*Jim H-N – You’re right that we must fight the battle for freedom and reason on many fronts. This means not only the latest, long-overdue action by Republicans to take a stand against the freight train of socialism. It also means fighting on many particular issues—Sarbanes-Oxley, “Fairness Doctrine” censorship, eliminating the secret ballot in union elections, etc. We need to argue articulately both in terms of principles and consequences. After all, most of the problems the government is trying to “solve” were created by government.

And it’s important to highlight the wealth-creators, to distinguish them from those who prosper through government favors, and to show why they need and deserve freedom to create. A small example was seen Sunday on Meet the Press. Fred Smith from FedEx pointed out that the tax code discourages capital investment in manufacturing. Others have noted that the Federal government subsidizes the auto industry even as it plans to impose more regulations on those manufacturers, for example, increasing the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. Normally, if it moves, government tries to kill it and if it stops moving government tries to subsidize it. Now the Feds are doing both at once!

*Thanks Chris and Adam! Adam, to your point, I served six years as an elected member of my town commission. No High Politics but I headed off some stupid spending and kept most revenues in the police department to keep our small town relatively safe. I wish more Libertarian Party members would also focus on the local level.

*Thank Barbara for bringing up the historical examples. And you’re right about the “Gus Webb” attitude. I’ve spent much of my life around politicians—it’s a dirty job but someone has to do it. And there really is what Dick Armey—one of the good politicians—calls a “control freak” mindset. They just get off on running other peoples’ businesses and lives. It’s almost like a primal urged married to a statist ideology and producing the worst type of human.

But there is some reason for optimism. Most Americans are suspicious of and opposed to the stimulus package in its current form. I suspect it will pass with some changes—probably cosmetic—made. But the American public has been soured on the Obama “New Era” rhetoric right off. Some are coming out of their haze and seeing the need to look critically at pricy government proposals and promises. The political ground is very slowly becoming fertile again for a message of freedom.

*MSK – You’re right that Rush, Beck, and others are speaking up and getting attention. Obama dissing Rush actually elevates Rush and calls attention to him. Good news for us.

As you’ve seen, we at TAS are trying to put out new pieces nearly every week and the current political and economic situation will be frequent targets in this target-rich environment!