Archive for the ‘Philosophy’ Category

In his book Orthodoxy, the genius, G.K. Chesterton says of The Maniac:

“The madman’s explanation of a thing is always complete, and often in a purely rational sense satisfactory. Or, to speak more strictly, the insane explanation, if not conclusive, is at least unanswerable; this may be observed specially in the two or three commonest kinds of madness. If a man says (for instance) that men have a conspiracy against him, you cannot dispute it except by saying that all the men deny that they are conspirators; which is exactly what conspirators would do. His explanation covers the facts as much as yours. Or if a man says that he is the rightful King of England, it is no complete answer to say that the existing authorities call him mad; for if he were King of England that might be the wisest thing for the existing authorities to do. Or if a man says that he is Jesus Christ, it is no answer to tell him that the world denies his divinity; for the world denied Christ’s.”

Or if a man says the only reason why you criticize him is because because of his race…

Or if a man says you’re a racist because [insert definition of racism]…

Chesterton had Theron pegged.

There’s been a lot of excitement from some in the Twitterverse about the possibility of Indiana governor Mitch Daniels tossing his hat in the ring for the GOP nomination in 2012, but I’ve been unenthusiastic at best. I’ll grant that he’s done some good things in Indiana but I believe that now is the time for a transformational candidate, not just a repeat of the “compassionate conservatism” (an euphemism for “big spending Republicanism”) of George W. Bush. Now, anyone to the right of Joe Stalin would be preferable to Barack Obama, but why settle for more of the same sort of Republicanism that helped get us into the mess we’re in today?

There is no single overriding issue with which I have differences with Daniels but he says things that make me cringe, knowing that we would not see eye to eye on much. Today for example we have a report about his signing laws instituting an educational voucher system and expanding the number of charter schools. These are good ideas which I like, but why does Mitch think they are good ideas? Because they are a form of “social justice.”

I’m sorry, but no conservative should ever use that phrase in support of any policy. Even if one means it in the most benign literal sense rather than the more common left-wing socialist connotation, to use “social justice” as a selling point at best displays tone deafness or naivete. School choice isn’t about social justice. School choice is about liberty, as are most good conservative ideas. Ideally, school choice should be a stepping stone to the complete privatization of education but that is something for the states to decide for themselves.

The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the blueprint for protecting our God-given liberty and nowhere in our founding documents will you find power delegated to the federal government to do anything with regard to public education but Governor Daniels told the American Enterprise Institute that while there is “more to the Department of Education than there should be” that “there is a federal role” in education, by which he meant that he supports national education standards. We’ve all been conditioned to accept it as normal, but in reality any role in education (and many other aspects of our lives) that the federal government now has is only by usurpation of power not granted in the Constitution. That there is “more to the Department of Education than there should be” is a true statement mathematically, but in a political sense such wording concedes that a federal Department of Education should in fact exist. On top of this he had flowery praise for the efforts of President Obama and his Secretary of Education which makes me wonder if he would even be able to mount more than a John McCain level of effort running against Obama.

Going a bit farther back, the “truce” comments that Daniels made are troubling. This never really bothered me from the sense that I thought he was anything other than pro-life (a position which is also rightly understood as based in human liberty, by the way). It bothered me because it made no sense. I can understand mounting a campaign which emphasizes the imminent financial problems we face but to present it as he did was crazy in my opinion. Presidents still need to appoint judges during a financial crisis and people want to know what kind a president will appoint. You can’t just expect people to react positively when asked to set aside some of their core beliefs until some crisis is over. That he would do so makes me doubt his judgement and leadership abilities.

I have really had it with voting against bad candidates instead of voting for good ones. I can’t yet see how Daniels would present me with an opportunity for the latter. He may have streamlined the motor vehicle department in Indiana but the Presidency is about things bigger than just making an overreaching federal government more affordable. At this point I hope he just chooses not to run for the GOP nomination because I don’t think he is concerned with returning the federal government to it’s Constitutionally limited rols. To top it all off, known idiot, Dana Millbank sings the praises of Daniels in his Washington Post column yesterday. That might just be the deal-breaker.

Anyone reading my Twitter stream lately probably has me lumped together with the folks calling for primary challengers for Speaker Boehner and other craziness. I’m really not inordinately down on the recent budget deal. I agree that we probably got more than we could have reasonably expected. I don’t see it as a great victory either. As a result my tweets, I believe, have come across as more negative than intended. I think my problem stems from a near pathological need to look at the big picture.

As an engineer working for the federal government, I’ve been party to many ill-conceived boondoggles during which most of my expressed concerns were dismissed with the now familiar “it’s the best we can do right now.” At times my documented performance goals required me to defend the original dumb decisions to critics with whom I personally agreed. Washington bureaucracy is maddening.

As my mental health deteriorated in my ever shrinking cubicle, I started to look for other options. I took batteries of in-depth career aptitude tests hoping to discover a new path. The tests measured tendencies and preferences more so than strengths and weaknesses. They gave me a pretty fair overview of how my brain is wired. In what they called “diagnostic reasoning” I scored in the 99th percentile, which means I can’t help but see inherent problems with some things. Finding progress toward expanded individual liberty in Washington politics seems to require a level of Orwellian double-think of which I’m just not capable–or just not willing to attempt.

The diagnostic reasoning thing isn’t an indication that I’m actually right about anything, but either way I can’t get enthusiastic about proposals that don’t directly address my basic concerns. Hence the recent budget deal and the plan put forward by Congressman Ryan, despite having some obvious good points, just don’t excite me. I’ve seen nothing to indicate that this isn’t just the normal swinging of the pendulum from left to right…then left again. Seeing it praised by folks who may or may not have been out of diapers the last time we had a “conservative revolution” (which ultimately gave us Obama) doesn’t instill me with much confidence either. Bad government that is less expensive isn’t a great leap toward reviving our founding principles of individual liberty and limited government. Maybe it’s in the right general direction but I need to see a lot more before I start getting confident in our side’s leadership. So in that vein, I’ll offer a few things which I might consider celebrating or at least getting enthusiastic about.

Five things that will make me feel like we’re winning:

1. More Republicans (or Democrats for that matter) talking about what the federal government’s legitimate role in our lives is, and not just how much the federal government costs (which is an entirely different issue)

2. Politicians in both parties offering proposals to end our addiction to federal handouts more often than they cry about our addiction to foreign oil.

3. More states standing up to say “no” to the federal government even if it means giving up federal funding.

4. The abolishment of at least one unnecessary federal agency becoming a plank in a major party’s platform

5. An actual reduction in force (RIF) for federal personnel instead of just phony pay freezes.

So far, we’ve barely scratched the surface of any of these. When we do, maybe I’ll be more positive about what’s going on.

Excellent post by Kellie Jane over at Pundit League: Fairy Tales Aren’t for Wusses.

My three favorite writers are probably J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, and G.K. Chesterton. One thing they share is a no nonsense view of the nature of good and evil. All three men were great thinkers and philosophers in their own right and they all knew the importance of fairy tales. Fairy tales quite often contain more absolute truth than more realistic fiction. In the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Aragorn probably expresses it best.

Eomer said, ‘How is a man to judge what to do in such times?’

‘As he has ever judged,’ said Aragorn. ‘Good and evil have not changed since yesteryear, nor are they one thing among Elves and another among Men. It is a man’s part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.’

I’ve never read a more succinct refutation of the failed philosophy of moral relativism.

Liberal Democrats seem to live in Bizarro World. On the surface they appear to lack even the tiniest trace of interest in maintaining intellectual consistency. They live to rebel against Aristotle’s principle of non-contradiction. They make no sense.

This seemingly surreal state in which liberal Democrats choose to live becomes glaringly evident when one examines recent debate on two issues–the DREAM Act and the Death Tax.

Passing the DREAM (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors) Act, is a top priority for the left. The intent of this act is to give special tuition assistance and amnesty to people who, as minors, illegally immigrated to the United States with their parents. This legislation is necessary, supposedly, because we can’t punish the children for the sins of their parents. These kids’ parents broke the laws of this country and benefitted from doing so, but we should give them every benefit of the doubt and give them preferential treatment over the children of legal residents.

On the other hand, the Democrat party is hell bent on making the Death Tax (or “Estate Tax”) as punitive as possible. Barney Frank, the spittle-spewing Congressman from Massachusetts, for example, justifies this by saying that heirs did not “earn” the money they inherit. Therefore children should not expect to benefit from their parents’ hard work and success. The government is entitled to take it from them.

So these are the priorities of the Democrat party: Reward the children of lawbreakers for their parents’ lawbreaking and punish the children of productive and successful people for their parents’ productivity and success. This seems totally illogical to me, but this is because I place a high value on truth and integrity. To a Democrat these are totally logical positions to hold simultaneously, though. Why? Because truth and integrity are not a factor for them. Only one thing ultimately matters to a modern Democrat–political power.

Democrats crave political power above all things. Seizing the assets of successful people even after their death gives them no pause for reflection. Even if the heirs worked hard alongside their parents to build a family business or a family farm with the “dream” of one day taking over, in the eyes of a power hungry liberal that fortune belongs to the government. By confiscating the property of the successful and redistributing it to the illegal, Democrats in effect buy their own reelection. What seems to be erratic and illogical is actually a well planned scheme, one which the GOP has long seemed ill-equipped to identify or fight. Hopefully that is beginning to change, but I will need to see it before I believe it.