Strauss-Kahn, Exemplar of Socialism

 | 

The libertarian critique of socialism, or “social democracy,” has usually gone something like this:

The socialist program demands a planned economy. A planned economy can result only from plans. Plans must be made by a group of experts who are not subject to the vagaries of the electoral process. To form and implement their plans, the planner-kings must know everything crucial to the economy. They must know everything significant to their own plans, and be able to predict everything significant that may result from them.

But that is impossible.

This being true, the people who become planners will be those who are either stupid enough to believe that Plans can succeed or cynical enough to care only about the personal power that can be acquired by Planning.

The libertarian critique has a logic that no socialist program ever possessed.

Now we witness the reductio ad absurdum of the socialist idea: Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the International Monetary Fund, chief honcho of the French Socialist Party, and prospective president of France, who was arrested Saturday on charges of trying to force a maid in his $3,000 a night hotel suite to have sex with him.

Suppose that the charges turn out not to be true. Suppose that Strauss-Kahn’s nickname, “the great seducer,” means nothing. Suppose that consensual sex is nobody’s business but one’s own. Suppose all these things — the last of which is certainly true. The $3,000 a night hotel remains a problem.

As a self-chosen representative of socialism, and an anointed planner of the world's economy, Strauss-Kahn has supposedly devoted his life to the good of the people. How, then, $3,000 a night? On what premise must the people of the world pay for that?

I’ll tell you. The premise is that Strauss-Kahn, a product of those inner-circle French schools whose graduates automatically get high government jobs, deserves his perquisites of office, because he is somehow qualified to plan the world's economy.

Is he?

No. And anyone who thinks that he himself is so qualified, and uses that idea to justify his perquisites of office, is likely to present a strange moral profile.

World economic planning is allegedly justified on humanitarian and charitable grounds. Planners, allegedly, exist to help people, especially the deserving poor. Planners are supposed to be performing an altruistic work, the modern form of a religious mission. Yet among these managers of the world economy there is a strange absence of people who live in modest circumstances, practice some kind of religious or ethical discipline, or have anything to do with normal human beings, except when the maid arrives a few minutes early in their $3,000 a night hotel suite.

There are plenty of smart people in this world. Many modest people, skeptical of their own conclusions because they are actually in touch with their fellow citizens and knowledgeable about their lives, are also smart people. Strangely, many of these smart people are socialists, but their ambition is not to become world socialist leaders.

Why?

Because the idea that a small group of people is smart enough and knowledgeable enough to plan the financial lives — in fact, the lives — of six billion people is an idea that no one with any ethical understanding would apply to himself. An ordinary moralist would ask, “Who am I to do that? I don’t know enough. I could never know enough.”

Strauss-Kahn presents little evidence of any such moral or practical reflection. But what he did with his life was predictable, under the modern socialist system. A beneficiary of unmerited advancement, he did his best to “stabilize” the world’s economy by using political means to get the productive countries to support the spendthrift countries. He who wasn't producing anything himself.

I don’t presume that an alcoholic is incapable of becoming a good author. Faulkner did. Hemingway did. And I don’t presume that a “great seducer” is incapable of becoming a great thinker. Plenty of examples argue otherwise. But I do not presume that a drunk will be good at running an airline. I do not presume that a person who lacks discretion even about consensual sex affairs will have enough discretion to plan the future of six billion humble families.

To put this in another way: how did someone as stupid as Dominique Strauss-Kahn become one of the small group of people appointed to oversee the fiscal life of planet earth?

The answer is: the logical necessities of the socialist idea. If you want socialism, you are voting for fools like Dominique Strauss-Kahn. You may not know it, but you are. Otherwise — I’m sorry, you can’t have socialism on any other terms. The fact that Strauss-Kahn rose to the top is only a sign that the rest of the candidates were actually less competent than he.

To conclude: if you want someone running your life, and the life of the world, you can be assured that it will be someone like Dominique Strauss-Kahn — and if not him, then worse.




Share This


The Significance of Ron Paul

 | 

Rep. Ron Paul, Republican of Texas, is once again running for president.

No member of the House of Representatives has run for president and won since James A. Garfield in 1880 (and Garfield had been elected to the Senate just before his election as president). No one as old as Paul has been elected president. He would be 77 when he took the oath of office. Ronald Reagan was 69.

Most of all, no one as radical as Paul has been elected president during the modern era.

There are hopes that this time around, Paul will break through to mainstream America because his argument against foreign war, for a sound currency, and for large cuts in spending will catch fire. It will with some voters, but political ideas acceptable to the American public don’t change that fast.

I said this two weeks ago in a talk to my state’s conservative activists — an audience that included Paul supporters. I said I agreed with Paul on some important things, but that he could not win. One came up to me afterward and said, “You know, every time you say that, you hurt his movement. He got as far as he did last time because thousands of people thought he could win.”

And they were mistaken. But he changed some minds. He made arguments that nobody else would have made — and some of those arguments look better four years later.

In 2007, no Republican candidates were arguing against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan except Paul. Now the Politico website reports a rise of war weariness and even “isolationism” among the Republicans in Congress. They are far from a majority, but they are a faction. And there is another libertarian candidate in the race, former governor Gary Johnson of New Mexico, who also calls for getting out of the foreign wars immediately.

Four years ago, no Republican candidates other than Paul were talking about protecting the value of the dollar. I still haven’t heard them doing it — but gold is above $1,500 an ounce, and the US dollar is below the Canadian and Australian dollars. The topic ripens.

Four years ago, there was no quasi-libertarian Tea Party movement, and Ron Paul’s quasi-libertarian son Rand Paul was not in the US Senate.

The ground has changed.

Still, it has not changed enough to elect Ron Paul as president. There is no point collecting dandelion seeds, such as the CNN/Opinion Research poll last week, which showed Paul running stronger against President Obama than any other Republican candidate. I have heard that poll cited several times, never mentioning that the split was Obama, 52%, Paul, 45%. Anyway, it was a poll taken 15 months before the election, which means it was a poll of a public not paying attention. Paul, in particular, had not been seriously attacked.

A few days later, he was. Conservative columnist Michael Gerson of the Washington Post ripped into him for his answer to a reporter’s question. The question was whether Paul favored the legalization of heroin.

There is a purpose in questions like that. It is to see whether the reporter can catch the candidate saying something crazy — not crazy, maybe, to a social scientist or a philosopher, but crazy to a political operative, or Joe Sixpack.

The role of the radical candidate is to take the taboo stands, fight valiantly, lose, and change the political ground.

In his answer, Paul compared freedom to use drugs to freedom of religion. Here is how Gerson paraphrased it: “If you tolerate Zoroastrianism, you must be able to buy heroin at the quickie mart.” This, Gerson sneered, is the essence of libertarianism.

But Paul had said more than that. Wrote Gerson: “Paul concluded his answer by doing a jeering rendition of an addict’s voice: ‘Oh yeah, I need the government to take care of me. I don’t want to use heroin, so I need these laws.’ Paul is not content to condemn a portion of his fellow citizens to self-destruction; he must mock them in their decline.”

Gerson concluded that any candidate who supports “the legalization of heroin while mocking addicts” is marginal and unserious. His column was a way of looking at the Republican list and scratching out the name of Ron Paul.

Libertarians can rail against Gerson as biased, which of course he is. He is an opinion columnist. Bias is part of his job description. But if your candidate is taken seriously, which Paul was not in 2008, this is the kind of attention he is going to get — and here it is attention from a conservative. If Paul became the Republican frontrunner, the pundits of the Left would go after him with machetes and crowbars.

They haven’t, because they delight in schism on the Right. But if he becomes the frontrunner, they will. And Paul has said plenty of things they can use to make a bogeyman out of him. Legalize heroin. Imagine what they could do with that.

Here is the reality. Certain political stands are safe, others are daring, and some are taboo. The role of the radical candidate is to take the taboo stands, fight valiantly, lose, and change the political ground. It is a valuable role to play: it is changing the field so that other good candidates, later on, can win.

What other candidate? Maybe Rand Paul in 2016 or 2020. Maybe Gary Johnson. One can imagine a Mitch Daniels-Gary Johnson ticket in 2012, with Johnson running in the top position later. Once a libertarian faction has been established in the Republican Party and is built into a substantial faction, room is made for other candidates, ones aiming more directly at winning, to have a go.

On the day that Paul announced, I had lunch with his 2008 campaign manager, Lew Moore. The timing was accidental; I had met Moore among the conservative activists two weeks before, and I hadn’t seen him in years. I asked him: when Paul ran in 2008, did the congressman seriously think he could win, or was it mostly to change the debate?

Without denying that Paul had had some chance of winning, Moore said the campaign was mostly about changing the debate. He said, “That is what his whole life has been about.”

And, at 75, Paul is not done. You have to admire the man. A lone congressman from Texas, never enjoying the support of his party’s establishment, has changed the political ground within the Republican Party.

And maybe he will change it some more.




Share This


Wind Power Wannabe

 | 

Two recent stories about wind power went unremarked in the mainstream media, presumably because the stories don’t fit the dominant Green narrative, aka the Green Dream.

The first is the report out of the UK that wind farms produce far less energy and cause far more problems with the grid than proponents have predicted or acknowledged.

The John Muir Trust — a “conservation charity,” please note — commissioned an engineering study of wind power in the UK. The report is out, and it is revealing. While wind power farms are pitched to investors — really, lawmakers, since wind power only exists because of lavish subsidies from government — as generating, on average, 30% of their maximum output over time, in reality they average only 25%. So wind power delivers about one-sixth less electricity than promised. This is a very significant shortfall. Yet wind power averages less than 20% of capacity most of the time, and a risible 10% about a third of the time.

But there is a more severe problem. Because wind power is so erratic, it needs backup from fossil fuel power plants, and that backup has to be able to shut down quickly when the wind blows hard, or come online quickly when wind farms won’t deliver even their measly 25% power. So wind power farms must be tied very tightly to fossil fuel plants, or the grid will face a shortfall.

Even worse: the times (such as the middle of the night) when power demands on the grid are slight are often the periods when the wind blows hardest. At such times, owners of wind generators — who have to sell power whenever it shows up, even at a low price — push power onto the grid, thereby forcing other providers off.

This is because the grid is just a distribution network of power lines and transformers with little capacity for storing power when it isn’t being consumed. Yes, there is “pumped storage,” which uses excess electricity to get water up hill, then during periods of high demand lets it flow back down, turning turbines as it goes, thus generating power. But pumped storage is inefficient and limited. Currently, the United States, the world leader in pumped storage, can store only about 2.5% of the average electric power sent across the grid at any given time.

A second damaging piece of news for wind power is the report that it may have lost its enchantment even for the Dutch.

Perhaps because of its historic use of windmills, the Netherlands has invested heavily in modern wind power. It is now third in the world in offshore wind power generation — of course heavily subsidized by the government. But the new center-right government has decided that continuing the massive subsidies, which include the transfer of 4.5 billion Euros of Dutch tax dollars to a German engineering company to build and run new wind farms, is not, shall we say, defensible.

The new Dutch Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, may have come up with the perfect epitaph for wind power. He reputedly said, “Windmills turn on subsidies.” Soon fewer will be turning.




Share This


I Can’t Get a Job—I’d Lose My Benefits!

 | 

What are we learning from the recent census?

A headline in this Thursday’s Westchester County Journal News proclaims "Census: Density in Pockets." Well, duh. Just look around New York and you'll see high-rises and low-rises that house low-income families whose housing is subsidized by "Section 8" of the welfare code, which ties rents to a percentage of income. The more you earn, the more you pay. Conversely, if you don't earn anything, you'll pay almost nothing. I have a friend who pays $117 for a one-bedroom apartment on a tree-lined street in North Yonkers.

She's one of the lucky ones. I have other friends who live in a building in South Yonkers where a different drug king controls each floor. (That's how lucrative the drug trade is in these areas. After all, it's money off the books. It won't affect the rent.) Buildings are subdivided and subdivided again to provide housing for the burgeoning population of welfare recipients in these dense "pockets."

Another friend of mine teaches junior high in the Bronx. Recently she gave her students a typical assignment: what do you want to be when you grow up? One bright young seventh-grader wrote glowingly about his desire to go to college and become a lawyer. "I'll carry a briefcase to work and wear a charcoal gray suit," he wrote. "I'll drive a BMW and I'll help people with their problems." My friend cheered his enthusiasm as she read his dream. Then she reached his final paragraph: "But if I make too much money, I'll lose my benefits," he concluded. "Maybe I shouldn't go to college after all."

What a chilling message these children are learning from their parents. I hear it too, all the time. "I can't get a job. I'll lose my Medicaid." "I can't get a job. My rent will go up." So parents teach their children how to use the system — how to get on the Section 8 rolls, how to get more food stamps, how to get more welfare. Often for a girl, that means having babies outside of marriage. Children learn how to find jobs that are off the books, income that can go unreported. Their parents don't have the courage to say, "Get out of here! Go to college and fly far away!"

This is a Reflection full of storytelling, so I'm going to tell you one more story. My friend Kelly was a single welfare mom rearing two children, with another one on the way. She was living in a tiny, grungy apartment on one of the worst streets in Yonkers. When the father of the new baby left instead of marrying her, she knew she had to change her life. So she reached out for a different safety net from Section 8 or WIC (aid to Women, Infants, and Children) or Medicaid: she called her parents. Then she moved across the country to Sacramento, where her two older boys are now enrolled in better schools with better classmates. Her mother joyfully volunteered to take care of the baby while Kelly attended school herself. This month Kelly will graduate and become a dental hygienist. By the end of the summer she will be moving into her own apartment. I am so proud of her!

Government welfare always begins with good intentions. No one wants to see young mothers abandoned on the streets. No one wants to see children go hungry or uneducated. But these "pockets" of dense population are not what anyone intended. They are sad places, full of broken dreams and lost courage.

The War on Poverty was supposed to end this mess. It has only gotten worse, as any free marketeer could have predicted. Government needs to get out of the way and stop competing with free market housing, so that more people like Kelly can find the courage to leave the grungy pockets of Section 8 and move into wider, roomier pockets somewhere else — anywhere else! —  with better schools, better opportunities, and a better way of life.




Share This


Creation vs. Diversion

 | 

When an investment opportunity seems too good to be true, prudence recommends asking: “Will I be sharing in wealth that I help to create, or will I taking some wealth from its real producers?”

A chain letter is an example of just diverting wealth. So is a Ponzi scheme; so is the familiar Nigerian email scam, which gains superficial plausibility from a whiff of dishonesty or illegality.

Similarly, someone engaged in a possibly though not obviously productive business — perhaps some complicated Wall Street transaction — may well ask about creation or diversion of wealth. If not conscience, then concerns about legality and the dependability of success prompt the question.

Someone offering a suspiciously attractive opportunity might dodge the question about wealth creation by saying that the success of his method, though honorable — a method of choosing stocks and timing transactions, perhaps — depends on secrecy. Even so, an answer in general terms is in order; and the vaguer the answer, the more skepticism prudence recommends.

Beyond physical objects, wealth of course includes intangibles such as education, repair and other services, transportation, entertainment, travel and tourism, and comforts of various kinds. Similarly, the production of wealth includes not just growing or physically shaping things but also specialization, the division of labor, and exchange. (Each party to a voluntary and informed transaction gains what he considers more wealth than what he gives.)

Financial operations come into the story. Arbitrage of the most obvious kind moves resources or products from where they are less scarce and valuable to where they are scarcer and more valuable; and by ironing out price discrepancies, it makes the price system more accurate in equilibrating supply and demand. A well functioning market generates knowledge and uses it productively.

 Speculation — most obviously but not only in standard commodities — is a kind of arbitrage in time, moving things from a time when they are less valuable to a time when they are more valuable. If something, say wheat, is expected to become scarcer in the future, a speculatively bid-up price tends to hasten economies in consuming the thing and possibly hasten its production, thereby lessening its future scarcity.The speculators themselves bear the costs of being wrong. Speculation contributes to the depth and resiliency of futures and forward markets, where businesses can hedge against the risk of adverse price changes (and where, as a result, opposite risks can more or less neutralize one another).  Insurance is an obvious example of hedging against risk. 

Saving and investment make possible the increased productivity of well-chosen roundabout, time-consuming, capital-using kinds and methods of production. (Here “capital” means resources freed by savers from serving current consumption so they can serve longer-term-oriented production instead.) The stock markets and related activities help allocate capital to places where it promises to be most productive. Financial intermediation tailors the terms on which capital is available to the varied wants and needs of savers, borrowers, and companies issuing stock; securitization of loans is just one example.

Like capital, risk-bearing is an essential element in production, especially innovative production. Various kinds of stocks and bonds and derivatives, including even the notorious credit-default swaps, help place risk with the persons and institutions most willing and able to bear it. Specialization in risk-bearing enhances confident and productive business planning.

The great variety of financial operations and innovations allows scope, notorious scope, for ignorance, error, and downright fraud. (Some participants, such as Enron energy traders, reputedly, may see their business as a struggle in which the other side is supposed to lose.) More broadly, wealth comes in so many forms, and cooperation in producing it occurs in so many ways, even very indirect ways, that an answer to the question with which I started can seldom be precise.

Nevertheless, insisting on whether wealth is being created or merely diverted can provide healthy discipline.




Share This


Dr. Jekyll and President Hide

 | 

In one of the scenes in Citizen Kane, the protagonist's former friend Jed Leland describes the character of the flamboyant politician and tycoon. "He had a generous mind," Leland says. "But he never gave himself away. He never gave anything away. He just . . . left you a tip."

He might have been describing President Obama.

Like Kane, Obama is a colossal self-advertiser. He first made his reputation, indeed, by writing a book of quasi-autobiography. Like Kane, he can hardly get through a sentence without using the word "I." He constantly refers to government entities as "my secretary of state," "my secretary of the treasury," "my department of defense," and so on. Yet when it comes to revealing himself . . . no. He'd rather be tortured than give up any pieces of the sacred substance, or anything even associated with it.

One assumes that Obama bogarted all specifics about his supposedly close and inspiring relationship with Reverend Wright because Wright had become a political embarrassment. And one assumes that Obama wants to keep his college records secret because he wasn't a very good student. These are assumptions, however, because Obama keeps his stuff to himself even when it would do him good to give it away.

The classic example of this compulsion is his logically pointless war against the people who wanted to see his birth certificate. He conceded the struggle only when he started to fear that it was costing him support for reelection, thus torturing him beyond the limits of even his endurance. For years he had made a public fool of himself by not releasing an innocuous scrap of paper.

Why, after that performance, I expected him to surrender the Osama death photos, I don't know. Maybe I thought he had reformed, and some nice, generous, "transparent" Dr. Jekyll had replaced the clutching, anal, emotionally threatened President Hide. But whatever I thought, I was wrong. The preposterous decision not to release the pictures, ostensibly to chasten radical Islamicists with the evidence of our moral superiority, will merely convince the world that Barry Obama, like Charlie Kane, has more than a small screw loose.

But what about the "tip" — "he just left you a tip"? In Citizen Kane, the protagonist paid other people for "services rendered." He demanded their love, but "he had no love to give." So he offered them money or power or other crass "tips." And that, in his way, is what Obama does. Of all the politicians I can think of, he is the greediest for love but the least interested in other people. His speech is without stories or anecdotes. He seldom alludes to any actual historical event, anything that people actually did in the past. He appears to retain no vivid memories of the people in his own past, or any real interest in the people he meets today. He speaks always as if he were reminding his audience of things they should already have been taught, never as if he wanted to learn from their responses what they themselves would like to know. In lieu of real human concern, he professes a vast interest in abstractions — progress, equality, fairness, proving to our enemies that we are better than they are in some vague, general way.

These are not the kind of tips you can take home and spend. The real stuff — he keeps that to himself. You're not getting any of that.




Share This


Another Worm Turns

 | 

I have reflected before on the pivotal battle fought by Republican governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin to modify the collective bargaining rights of most public employees. Despite an unprecedentedly brutal fight, with union-backed Democrat legislators fleeing to a different state to deny the Republicans a quorum, an extraordinary anti-Walker and anti-Republican propaganda blitz bankrolled by the unions, massive demonstrations organized and also bankrolled by them, Walker and the Republican legislators succeeded in pushing through their reform bill.

The unions then doubled down, running a multi-million dollar campaign to replace an independent state supreme court judge with a union stooge committed to nullifying the law. That failed, and the unions were stunned. They have seldom met with such abject failure before; the experience is beyond ken, and their ability to comprehend.

Now another blow to union domination has been struck in of all places — Massachusetts!

Yes, lawmakers in the Massachusetts House of Representatives have voted to cut back municipal employees’ ability to bargain collectively for healthcare benefits. (The Massachusetts bill, by the way, includes the police. It thus goes farther than the Wisconsin law, which exempted police and firefighters from the new rules). And they did so by an almost 3-to-1 margin.

In particular, the law would give local authorities (such as mayors) of the more than 350 cities in the state the power to modify municipal employee healthcare benefits, such as by setting deductibles and copayments. The unions are pushing an alternative: if municipal officials and municipal union negotiators cannot reach an agreement, the dispute will go to binding arbitration. This is a common union ploy. Unions know that arbitrators don’t have to face the electorate, and don’t have to balance budgets, either.

Even more remarkable is the fact that the move to rein in Massachusetts’ public employee unions was and is led in great part by Democrats. This is the most dramatic illustration of a growing split in the Democratic Party coalition: more and more Democrats are seeing that their cherished progressive programs are being defunded by the boundless greed of the public employee unions, bogarting all the tax revenues collected by the progressive states. In the case of Massachusetts, healthcare benefits for municipal workers have more than doubled in a decade. And the compensation packages (pay, pension, and healthcare benefits) for municipal workers are consuming about three-quarters of the average municipal budget.

As in Wisconsin, the unions fought viciously to stop the bill they did not want, but to no avail. And shocked they were at the turn of the worm. Robert Haynes, head of the Massachusetts’ AFL-CIO (which represents over 175,000 municipal employees), squawked, “It’s pretty stunning. These are the same Democrats that all these labor unions elected. The same Democrats who we contributed to in their campaigns. The same Democrats who tell us over and over again they’re with us, that they believe in collective bargaining, that they believe in unions. . . .” You can just hear his outrage: dammit, in the good old days, when you bought off politicians, they stayed bought!

Haynes vowed that the unions would keep fighting the reforms to “the bitter end,” and that the union myrmidons would target those renegade Democrats as surely as they target Republicans. His union is planning to expand its demonstrations, bringing in police and firefighters to participate, increase the ads run, and increase the lobbying.

Speaker of the House Robert DeLeo, a Democrat, offered a couple of large concessions to the unions and to members of his own party who are frightened by the unions. The first would give public employees 30 days to argue against proposed changes in their healthcare plans (though without the power to stop the changes), and would give union members 20% of any savings for the first year from contested healthcare changes that local officials impose. (Considering that the bill will likely save taxpayers $100 million a year, this is a pretty good deal.) The proposal brings the bill closer to what Governor Deval Patrick has himself offered. But the unions are still opposed.

It is unclear whether the bill will make it through the Massachusetts Senate, and if it does, whether Patrick will sign it. He is a very progressive liberal Democrat, but his state faces a nearly $2 billion deficit.

However, the win in the Massachusetts House is already telling. It says that we are coming to the place where voters are no longer ignorant of how much the public employee unions have been ripping them off. This awareness is only beginning to grow. It will accelerate quickly as the retirement of the Boomers brings to light just what massive fiscal frauds the employee unions have committed, and as people see their social services begin to crumble.

It also says that there is a limit to how long Democrats will do the unions’ bidding. Under public choice theory, we assume that all actors in the political process (voters, special interest groups, and politicians) are motivated primarily by self-interest. The politician wants to be reelected, and he knows that in most situations, the public isn’t paying attention to what laws are being enacted, while the special interests, such as unions, are. So it makes sense to screw the voters in exchange for special interest financial support. But when the public is aware and concerned, the politician knows that special interest money won’t compensate for the lost votes. In such cases, where voters are no longer rationally ignorant, the politician will be forced to defy the special interests.

We may be reaching that point.




Share This


What's in a Birth Certificate?

 | 

So, Barack Obama released his “long form” birth certificate and bought himself some temporary tactical advantage against Donald Trump and millions of angry conspiracy mongers out there. The document confirms, as much as any such item can, that Barack Hussein Obama II was born at 7:24 p.m. on August 4, 1961 at Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu.

The lingering question of whether the man meets the constitutional requirements to be President of the United States — specifically, that he is a native-born citizen — is answered. He does. And, specifically, he is.

But, if you look a little more deeply into the hard typeface of the Certificate of Live Birth, you can see some evidence of the background that drives a person like Obama. Indulge me in a little armchair Freud.

According to the document, the president’s mother — Stanley Ann Dunham — was 18 years old when she delivered him. That’s very young by any reasonable standard, young enough to make the baby’s arrival seem reckless and ill-advised. A heavy burden to bear, especially when you were the baby in question.

And there’s the bureaucratic judgment in the Certificate’s explication that the mother’s name did not match the name of the child’s father. The 18-year-old girl signed the Certificate “Ann Dunham Obama,” a small act of revolt against the officious document’s implication of illegitimacy.

Good for her.

Many ask, now that Obama has released this Certificate, why he didn’t do it sooner. I have an idea. He’s been protecting his mother from the harsh judgment of petty tyrants.

How many bureaucratic sneers did she suffer, bearing and raising a mixed-race child in the early 1960s? How many dirty looks, when she carried him on buses or airplanes? Brought him to campus at the several universities she attended? Applied for passports? Applied for food stamps?

And how soon did little Barack II realize that authority figures judged his mother harshly? That official forms made unfriendly assumptions about her marital status? How quickly did other kids say unkind things about his . . . unconventional . . . mom? Kids in Hawaii. Kids in Kansas. Kids in Indonesia.

The facts around Stanley Ann Dunham’s life are hazy and are likely to remain so. This is the haze created by family members protecting a loved one they know needs the help. A foolish daughter. An eccentric mother.

There are different versions of when or even whether Stanley Ann and the elder Obama married. Apparently, they never lived together as husband and wife; and the President’s own wife has said that his mother was “very single when she had him.”

There’s a hard edge in that last bit, even from his wife. Young Michelle Robinson — from an intact, upright, churchgoing family headed by a father who was a civil servant — had plenty of occasions to judge foolish teenage mothers on food stamps. You can practically hear it in the very that she uses to modify single. Michelle wasn’t going to bounce around a bunch of motley state schools with a baby on her hip; she was going to Princeton.

For most of his 50 years, Barack Obama has been protecting his mother from judgments and slights. Since she passed away in the ‘90s, he’s been protecting her ghost. He’s the archetypal high-achiever from a dysfunctional family. That’ll never change.

And that archetypal sort is precisely who seeks the presidency in this dysfunctional age.

Trump and Obama’s other antagonists have already moved on to press the President to make public his transcripts from college and law school, as previous presidents have. Their assumption, which Obama himself has tacitly acknowledged in his memoirs, is that he was a mediocre student who advanced through elite academia on affirmative action preferences.

Here’s a prediction: Obama will never release those transcripts. His birth certificate — his entrance into this world — is a testament to what the Babbitts deemed his foolish mother’s recklessness and immaturity. But his Ivy League degrees are the armor he built to protect her and himself from those judgments. And slights. And dirty looks.

He’s not going to lower that.

And, in this narrow Freudian context, good for him. It isn’t a good idea, tactically — and it’s poor form, personally — to mess with a man’s coping mechanisms.




Share This


The Healthy Society

 | 

British Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking on February 5, deplored “state multiculturalism,” a failed doctrine of “encourag[ing] different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream.” Immigrants should feel, rather, that they were living in an inclusive society, sharing a national identity, culture, curriculum, and language. Lacking such a sense of belonging and experiencing, instead, segregation and separatism, some young Muslims in Britain had turned to extreme Islamism. Cameron cited the “horror” of forced marriage in some immigrant communities. He proposed “a two-month programme to show sixteen-year-olds from different backgrounds how to live and work together.”

Earlier, on October 16, Chancellor Angela Merkel had expressed similar worries for Germany, home to some four million Muslims. The idea of people from different cultural backgrounds living happily "side by side" without a common culture did not work, she indicated: "This [multicultural] approach has failed, utterly failed." French President Sarkozy has said similar things.

Such remarks might be code words for anti-Islamism, but I am not cynical enough to think so. The worry of Cameron and others seems plausible, but it requires nuancing. It is perhaps soundest for a situation with two aspects. First, only one substantial immigrant culture, rather than several, confronts the local culture. Second, the authorities work to preserve the distinction — as, for instance, through year-by-year, not just transitional, public-school instruction in the immigrant language.

But this scenario does not necessarily recommend the opposite: different cultures melted into a homogeneous dominant one. A good society, true enough, does require consensus on ethical norms such as treating other people honestly and honorably, respecting their rights and property — not cheating, stealing, or committing aggression. Such consensus can accommodate differences in details of etiquette and lifestyles (arguably extending to same-sex and even polygamous marriages). Furthermore, a good society requires acceptance of a common legal system, without special privileges or burdens for particular groups. Consensus on the political system also rules out seeking change by violence, but it admits advocating even radical change by constitutional means.

While rejecting militaristic and imperialistic nationalism, Ludwig von Mises welcomed liberal nationalism, including movements for liberation and unity of populations speaking a common language (Nation, State, and Economy, 1919/1983). Liberal nationalism can be a bulwark of peace. Different nations should be able to respect and — to interpret a bit — even share in each one’s pride in its own culture and history. By extension, such mutual respect and celebration can extend to members of different national heritages within a single country. A healthy multiculturalism welcomes a diversity of interests and heritages without official favor or disfavor for any.

A diversity of national heritages can enrich a country’s overall culture. Quasi-native speakers of heritage languages, especially with their own publications and broadcasts, can promote language-learning and can be useful in diplomacy and in war. Diversity even of national restaurants and foods — Chinese, Mexican, Greek, German, French, and so on — multiplies options for work and for leisure. Cultural diversity can bolster a general awareness of history.

Diverse national heritages can scarcely offer benefits as great as those of the occupational division of labor and of domestic and international trade. They can, however, multiply the variety of niches in life in which a person or a family can feel comfortable and important. They can help avoid the dismal opposite, a society in which individuals must feel superior or inferior in competition on a single scale of overriding significance (money being the most obvious metric). A diverse society includes all sorts of (decent) persons, including, yes, entrepreneurs and investors obsessed with creating wealth and making money. Few people, however, can realistically expect outstanding success on the monetary scale. Pursuing an unattainable material equality would foster attitudes and politics incompatible with a quasi-equality of a more humane and more nearly attainable type.

A healthy society — to continue my amateur psychologizing — comprises many “noncomparing groups” (so called by analogy with the noncompeting groups recognized by the 19th-century economist John Elliott Cairnes). People should not be ranked according to the fields in which their accomplishments lie. Each person should have a chance to excel in something, whether craftsmanship, business, scholarship, athletics, a hobby such as collecting classic cars or rare coins, a religious group, travel and adventure, conviviality, or self-effacing service to mankind.

And, yes, cultivating a national heritage. Many kinds of excellence should be as respectable as the amassing of fortunes. A teacher could continue associating without embarrassment with former colleagues or students who had become business tycoons, not because progressive taxation had lopped off their huge incomes but because scholarly values and monetary values were regarded as incommensurate yet of equal dignity. While the approach to equality sought by left-liberal egalitarians implies measurement, true liberals need to follow Herbert W. Schneider (Three Dimensions of Public Morality, 1956, p. 97; cf. pp. 100, 118) in emphasizing "the incommensurability of human beings.”




Share This


True for Me

 | 

I’ve reflected before on the unintended comedy that flows from people in positions of authority or influence in our society denying the existence of objective reality. In the far future, enlightened people will look back on this era of American history and marvel at the fact that the children of a system built on reason could behave so irrationally.

A recent example: the slightly past-her-prime movie actress Ashley Judd (née Ciminella) recently made the rounds of television talk shows to promote a memoir. As expected of such a project, Judd included salacious tales of incestuous sexual abuse suffered when she was a young girl and edgy sex when she was a young woman. Also, occasional bouts of manic depression.

In the book, Judd recalls when she was in middle school and her mother — the country music singer Naomi Judd — started dating her second (and current) husband:

"Mom and pop were wildly sexually inappropriate in front of my sister and me ... a horrific reality for me was that when pop was around I would have to listen to a lot of loud sex in a house with thin walls. . . . I now know this situation is called covert sexual abuse."

It’s too bad that Judd has been reduced to this. She made some pretty good films in the 1990s and early 2000s — including my personal favorite, the surreal 1999 whodunit Eye of the Beholder.

But her deepest self-abasement doesn’t appear in her book. Asked on the Today show what her family thought of the book, Judd said:

"You know, the book is very honest [but] it’s not necessarily accurate, because everyone in my family has their own perspective and their own experiences. But it’s very true for me."

Ugh. Beware “true for me” memoirists.

Of course, some people go for this situational twaddle. One of the half-wit columnists at the website Salon.com wrote:

"Judd’s admission that her memoir is “true for me” allows for an acknowledgment of the real trauma she’s experienced while also making room in the narrative for other versions of events. Memory might not hold up in a court of law, but that doesn’t matter much to a scarred heart. One that’s suffering depression and a host of other hurts. And, by admitting that, Judd’s telling others that if it feels like abuse to you, it was abuse. And that’s good enough."

No, it’s not. As James Frey, Greg Mortenson, and a growing list of other fabulists and swindlers will attest, “true for me” memoirists are a sleazy lot. Often full of sanctimonious, politically-correct hypocrisy. Usually tripped up by undeserved self-regard.

Sadly, these same faults apply to the younger Ms. Judd. Less than three years ago, she appeared in a series of videos produced by a statist political advocacy group called Defenders Action Fund; in those videos, she castigated Sarah Palin for supporting the sport killing of wolves from helicopters. To wit: “Now back in Alaska, Palin is again casting aside science and championing the slaughter of wildlife.”

So, a woman who doesn’t hold herself to a standard of factual accuracy in her salacious memoir damns another woman for “casting aside science” when dealing with wildlife management. This selective embrace of objective reality is part of the reason that American culture is on the decline.

Statists thrive when people doubt objective reality and use terms like “true for me.”

Ashley Judd’s loud and libidinous mother probably summed up the real ethics of such people when — asked by the Today show for a response to her daughter’s stories — she said: “I love my daughter. I hope her book does well.” Cha-ching.




Share This
Syndicate content

© Copyright 2013 Liberty Foundation. All rights reserved.



Opinions expressed in Liberty are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Liberty Foundation.

All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.