In Defense of Libertarianism, part I

CNN was doing a post-debate analysis of the vice-presidential debates this evening. A "beyond politics" spot that the station apparently runs with some regularity. It's the sort of show you'd see on PBS if all semblance of television studio was ushered out for a black background and a round table in the middle - an attempt to filter out the noise of the world and focus, directly, on the issues in question and the people answering them. CNN, conversely, prefers the studio background and endless scrolling headlines at the bottom of the screen: constantly reminding the viewer that news is current and happening and ever-changing even as this analysis is taking place, and any attempt to cement ideas discussed herein shall be forfeit as idle notions tossed about in casual conversation. The problems are real but the people are shadows in the cave.

One of these shadows was named Alan Wolfe, a political scientist and sociologist at Boston College, whose most current book is called The Future of Liberalism. He seemed a smart fellow, and well-spoken. No one else at the table seemed particularly noteworthy: either there was little going on in the first place in each of those heads or they were out of their element, and as a forgiving sort of person I offer the benefit of the doubt.

When speaking about the public response to the $700 billion bailout (which both Obama and McCain claim to despise but championed as necessary anyway, and publicly touted the sections of the bill which each pushed for), the moderator of said discussion brought up the idea that Americans don't like the idea of bailing out Wall Street. No kidding. And as the discussion wandered, somehow the conversation turned to whether Americans wanted to help out those Americans who got in over their heads by taking out mortgages they couldn't afford in the first place.

Around this time, Alan Wolfe made an interesting observation. He spoke of what he sees as the difference between a moral society and a moralistic society. A moral society he defines broadly as one that reflects on its actions and their effects in order to establish better practices. Whereas a moralistic society holds a sort of moral absolutism that divides the world into good and evil but does not or cannot reflect on itself to recognize its own flaws. Wolfe thinks that American society today is primarily a moralistic society. Gee, I can't think of any examples of this, can you?



As if to illustrate this chance comment for the viewer, a video played shortly thereafter of Barack Obama giving his Democratic nomination acceptance speech. Borrowing another man's more famous phraseology, he emphasized: "I will restore our moral standing, so that America is once again the last best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom..."

Since when, I ask, does the strength of this nation come from its leader? I will restore, he said. As Abraham Lincoln made the point in the first place when he appealed to congress, "We - even we here - hold the power, and bear the responsibility." The Presidency, you might remember, is not ascended to by an emperor or a military dictator. You've still got to get elected in this country. For the last eight years, George W. Bush has felt the need to constantly remind us he is the Chief Executive, or the Commander in Chief, or the decider-in-Chief. Rarely does he seem to consciously realize that his is a position of elected representation, and he was put in that position as much to represent the interests of the electorate as to wield the authority he's been granted.

Obama could have said "We will restore our place in the world," and to any of the hungry faithful in the building it wouldn't have made a difference on way or another. But Martin Luther King, Jr., he is not. A moral leader is one who reminds us of our responsibilities, our capabilities and our dreams. Not one who intends to take the mantle placed on his head and lead us out of the frying pan on his self-identified qualities.

When I was in New Hampshire, I remember a television ad for John Edwards featuring a man who cried onstage with him, believing in his heart that Edwards would truly stand up for the little guy and the factory worker, and he wouldn't be bought out by corporate special interests.

When Americans vote for a leader they hope will save a nation, it further signifies the moralistic tendency that many recognize today. The danger is that we continue to give away our voice in our own governing process, continue to grant more powers to the decider-in-Chief and thereby limiting our own capacity and the capabilities of our local elected officials, until our government more closely resembles an oligarchy and our nation more closely resembles the Roman empire before its collapse.

As for the bailout, we Americans seem generally unaware that when we lawfully take away another person's right to live or do business as they see fit, we also limit our own. That's the curse of personal responsibility and the blessing. On the positive side, from the public reception this bill received from the get-go, it seems clear that Americans at least recognize that they don't wish to be debt-slaves for another $700 billion. Unfortunately, that's where we are, since the bill cleared the House the second time around.

Before I turned off the program, a comment was made about the ability of politics itself to change society. This is a fascinating thought, but one that needs to forment, and belongs in another post.