The Last Patrol

I have two aspects to this post: the micro (parts I & II), and the macro. Don't be concerned, it's not nearly as long as that makes it sound. First, the micro.

Micro I ...

Just to be clear here, you did not read in its entirety my last post, yet you felt qualified to comment on it? Just checking. At the risk of again waisting my time - seeing as you summarily judge my posts as of late in the first few paragraphs - I will endeavour to communicate this more succinctly. You do realize of course that your entire rebuttal was spent defending positions I never attacked. Of course I "got" the Katrina analogy. Yes, I saw there were aspects that defended Beck. And above all I acknowledge fully that you were advocating less government intrusion/help and more individual initiative towards charity. I never argued nor commented to the contrary. What I did take umbrage with were two very specific points in your original post. The two you either chose not to address, or didn't get to seeing as you ended your reading prematurely. And they were simply this:

1.) I'm disappointed in the Beck show lately ... for his continued ambiguity in commenting on "social justice" as a bad thing. I felt this an unwarranted disappointment. In fact, Beck has been quite specific in defining the social justice he finds evil. In short he advocates (& I paraphrase), if your preacher, pastor, candidate, or community leader suggests that social justice is outside the scope of the individual initiative, a collective responsibility, the prerogative of government, "run." As in, run away from that notion and individual. Now, does Beck include this caveat every time he utters a critique of quote, "social justice"? No. But any regular listener would be familiar with the explanation I just authored, even Catholic ones.

2.) If more of America supported a charitable organization with regular donations of time and resources, or offered the charity themselves in some manner, then the Federal government wouldn't be called upon by liberals and progressives to do it instead. First, no amount of charitable giving, no matter the level, would dissuade leftists, liberals or progressives from their agenda. The very idea of the modern progressive is to "progress" past individualism and the restraints of the Constitution so as to affect a collective salvation of equal outcomes. They would never accept as a substitute the free will and unregulated charity of individuals caring for their fellow man. And more important, you have the fundamentals of this equation reversed. It isn't that if we were more charitable privately then the government would be able to do less. Rather, if the government did less we would be more able to be give privately, both financially and as an emotionally induced imperative. And if you reread carefully what you wrote it isn't unreasonable to conclude you were chastising Americans for not caring enough privately, resulting in the ballooned government presence.

****

Micro II ...

New Deal.

To date I have not reconciled a fundamental conflict (as I see it) in your defense of New Deal. I consider the entire affair a "net loss" for the prosperity of America. You do not. The fundamental conflict I speak of is this: you have embraced a conservative ideology - smaller, decentralized government and maximum individual liberty, in a nut shell. And as a Conservative and thinking person you recognize that centralized planning and collectivist economic policy are inherently flawed. In addition, high taxes during tough economic times and large government intervention are things you find counter productive, both to the economic health of a nation and notions of individualism. How is it then that New Deal could have possibly of worked if you have concluded that such an agenda is flawed at a fundamental level? Lets say I concede to the numbers in modest gains you can point to from 1931-41. Fine, there were improvements. But as a Conservative, as someone whom rejects centralized big government planning/control (not to mention high taxes) as a road map for prosperity, isn't it reasonable for you to conclude that these gains happened despite New Deal, and not because of it? In other words we can find positive indicators in any economic calamity, because the US economy is so dynamic. If the principles at the core of New Deal ideology are flawed (which as a Conservative you have concluded), how could it be they worked in this one instance of history? I find it rather irrational to say that leftist economic planning can work in this era, but not that one. Yet, as I take it, that is exactly your position when you say that New Deal worked during FDR's tenure yet oppose such an agenda now. I mean, this sort of economic model of government - deficit spending to prime the pump; massive public works; and alphabet soup of programs, it either works as an economic recovery model or it does not, right? So how do you reconcile embracing "conservative" economic principles, because their opposite fails to produce, yet claim that indeed the opposite did produce in the 1930"s? (And please, don't give me "Reagan did it." Reagan deficit spent to win the Cold War & as a compromise to the Democrat controlled congress. He did not deficit spend to end unemployment and effect an economic recovery, as FDR attempted. In neither case would I claim deficit spending caused an effective economic recovery).

In addition, I have never gotten a straight answer as to the 37-38' Roosevelt Recession. A healthy economy, a recovered economy, is not one that goes into tail spins because the fed attempts to balance its' books. Isn't the agreement we arrived at, that the turning off the spigot caused that sharp recession, proof that whatever recovery the nation was enjoying to that point was artificial? Government propped? Not sustainable? Not "real?"

Furthermore, I don't think any respectable debating partner would accept as proof of New Deal success the fact that we haven't had a depression since. Not when you can't point to specifically the aspect of New Deal that caused this trend. In debate terms, correlation does not equal causation. Just because C follows A and B does not mean A+B = C. It is just as likely that allied (in the general sense of the word) world powers cleverly (perhaps too cleverly) linked their economies so as to prevent any one actor from going completely berserk. Mutually assured Economic Destruction gave cause to make sure nobody 'crashed" or "failed." I can't profess this as 100% the reason for not having a depression since, but neither can you offer such a guarantee for New Deal.

So again, I ask rhetorically (as I have asked literally before and gotten no response ... maybe you stopped half way through my post and didn't see the question, I don't know): if sitting here in 2010 you are a Conservative, and advocate a "conservative" agenda as the prescription for what ails us now (& in general for any economic recovery), how could its opposite, embodied in New Deal, have worked in the 1930's? In other words, if it worked, if it did not fail, then why not advocate such a plan now? Why haven't the conclusions you sought out and arrived at, which caused you to embrace a conservative political philosophy, also lead you to believe that New Deal couldn't have possibly achieved success (& subsequently assigned any gains to despite, not because)? If New Deal wasn't a failure, why have you adopted a political orientation that is 180 degrees from New Deal styled policy?

****

The Macro ... and I say the following with NO malice, no attitude whatsoever:

"I am perfectly aware that I am a conservative, in almost every sense of the word ..." Standing in the pit, the night we first met (& first disagreed), 10+ years ago or so, I would have never thought to hear (or read) you utter such words. Now here's why I title this the macro: I win. Hehehe, well that's not to say I triumphed in every argument. And it's not to say you are a conservative because of "me" or my bristling analysis low these many years. I attribute your "conversion" from a "center-left/solid Democrat Party voter" into a "conservative/almost down the ticket GOP voter" to your own intellectually honest pursuit of truth. Truth in what works and what does not. So no, I'm not taking credit ... Rather, with "I win" I mean to convey the sense of validation, near harmony, with the idea that during all those years of argument, of political ideological clashes, of hoarse throats coming back onto a game, that I was operating from a base political orientation that you eventually adopted. In other words, I was on the "correct side" all along, even if you disagreed with my presentation. This of course means Limbaugh, all those years you chided him, was "right" (as in right and wrong), even if you disagreed with his presentation. Tax policy; the false wisdom in finding reasons to vote for a pro abortion candidate (Bushs's tenure ended that argument); the environmental movement and its tenuous science; the 2nd Amendment; Reaganomics; a "living breathing" interpretation of the Constitution; health care (you did support Clinton despite Hillarycare, and I remember something about it being a "right" at one point); the Southern Border; even Newt Gingrich - on nearly all these issues and countless others you have come 180 degrees. The Titus I met that day in the pit would indeed have screaming matches with the one that sits before his key board today. Again, I don't take an ounce of credit, nor is this to say "I told you so" (well, maybe a little of the latter). I just find a calm sort of solace in the idea that at a core, fundamental level, during all those arguments, I was arguing on the right (read: correct) side ... that's all. And because you have so fundamentally changed, I hold out hope that New Deal will eventually go the way of these many other issues.

In conclusion ... (I feel like Bill Clinton at that 88' Democrat convention), let me say this. As it is clear to me that we have arrived at a point where we fundamentally agree; and more directly, since at those few times when we disagree you choose to dismiss out of hand and not even read my posts in their entirety - the Cardinal Sin of the blogosphere - I will let you hence forth engage your "God Given Right" of expression unimpeded by my participation.

Good day gents ...