Totalitarianism is once again on the march. It's coming at us so fast and from so many directions it is difficult to see as a whole, though the pieces are quite familiar.
Let's start with President Obama's most recent encroachment on the private sector, the putative firing of GM's CEO. Nothing in the Constitution tells us that Presidents should maniuplate the leadership of private enterprise, or usurp the responsibilities of shareholders and boards. While I shed no tears for GM or its failed CEO, I wonder about Obama's vision of the Presidency when he behaves more like Hugo Chavez than Teddy Roosevelt, our most activist President when it came to clipping the excesses of big business.
When in modern times has a President taken such invasive action in the private sector, apart from Richard Nixon's imposition of wage and price controls?
"He has the massive will of the American people behind him -- and he has been granted permission by us to do what he sees fit. If you liked this week's all-net 3-pointer, stay tuned."
To do what he sees fit. We're a long, long way now from the American political heritage of Rousseau, Locke, Burke, and Jefferson when we think like this.
Tough economic times are opportune moments for totalitarianism, and sometimes it comes with charismatic leaders who buff it up with charm and soaring rhetoric. Finally, though, all they offer are their own beliefs about what is fair, just and right. And when the timing is right, a lot of people will agree with them.
What is fair, just and right is usually defined against a fearful backdrop of scoundrels, represented by dehumanized stereotypes: The rich, bankers, lawyers, hedge fund managers, and usually Jews (don't worry -- that's coming).
Consider Glenn Beck's questioning of Connecticut's Attorney General, who could not offer any legal grounds for harrassing the bonus babies of AIG. Finally, he fell back on his perception of popular sentiment -- that AIG employees got "money they don't deserve."
Who's to be the judge of that, if not your boss? Apparently, more and more people feel comfortable making Obama the final judge of more and more things: What should taxpayers subsidize, who should be taxed more, what people ought to earn, what constitutes social justice.
To do what he sees fit. It is really no different than what Germans, Argentinian Peronistas, Spanish Francists, Italian fascists, and Nicaraguan Sandinistas granted to their leaders.
Come now, you say -- Obama's no Hitler! He is not. But National Socialism and every other fascist movement took root with government control of private industry and institutions (especially universities, and press). Private ownership, government control. Take away the funny mustaches and silly uniforms, and that's what totalitarianism is. Sometimes it is accompanied by imperialism and mass slaughter, but sometimes it is quieter than that (Tito, Castro, Peron, Chavez). Only the scapegoats change to suit the Leader's needs.
You won't catch President Obama wearing a funny uniform, but his minions in Congress just passed a bill that triples funding for Americorps, and organizes them into "local cadres," with uniforms, military-style discipline, and a committee to consider compulsory service for Americans of all ages. Even the San Francisco Examiner, hardly a conservative oracle, called it "creepy authoritarianism." And those same minions are considering passing his reduction of tax deductions for charitable contributions -- a move no doubt designed make the non-profit private sector more dependent on government, and less on private donors.
All of these policies, and more, show us a President who is a classid statist, with a profound distrust of the individual, and a will to curb individual freedoms in the interest of groups -- favored political classes of people. Most people won't be among those favored groups when it's all said and done.
The rising totalitarian sentiment is not confined to the left. It's worth remembering that our modern left and right, Communist and fascist movements, both originated from the dialectic philosophy of Hegel. Increasingly, we see fascist and Communist flags in public demonstrations in the streets of London and Paris, not to mention long-forgotten fascist flags and insignia increasing displayed at professional football matches in Europe.
Unconnected things, perhaps. I think not. I think we're seeing social phenomena -- Obama is one example -- that reflect people's reactions to widespread economic insecurity and fear for the future, a call for someone to just fix it, to make things right again. To do what he sees fit.
We all remember 9/11. We know exactly where we were when the first and second towers were attacked. But how many of us remember the particular events of 9/15? Where were you and I the morning when the American economic system was struck?
In response to consistent claims by Democrats that the Republicans caused this economic crisis, I developed a rough sequence of events which I thought lent themselves to helping us understand the bipartisan involvement in this recession. It turns out I was missing a most significant event. This event came to light in an interview between Rep Paul E. Kanjorski (D-PA) and C-SPAN's Washington Journal in which Kanjorski was explaining his support of the first bailout of Wall Street. Here's a portion of that transcript, h/t Townhall.com:
"I was there when the Secretary (of the Treasury Hank Paulson) and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve (Ben Bernanke) came those days and talked to members of Congress about what was going on. It was about Sept. 15. Here's the facts, we don't even talk about these things.
"On Thursday at about 11 o'clock in the morning, the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the United States to the tune of $550 billion, as being drawn out in the matter of an hour or two.
"The Treasury opened up its window to help. It pumped $105 billion into the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks. They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn't be further panic out there, and that's what actually happened."
Kanjorksi continued:
"If they had not done that, their estimation was that by 2 o'clock that afternoon, $5.5 trillion would have been drawn out of the money market system of the United States, would have collapsed the entire economy system of the United States and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed.
"Now we talked at that time about what would happen if that happened. It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it. And that's why when they made the point we've got to do things quickly, we did."
Townhall's Diana West goes on to say that these are staggering revelations. Given their sudden appearance out of the blue, you have to wonder, first, could they possibly be true? If so, why weren't we the people told about this $550 billion electronic run on the banks? The Google archive has retained some news about the money market run, but it was seriously downplayed in this article from Boston.com:
The panic sweeping the world's financial system hit Boston stalwarts Putnam Investments and State Street Corp., yesterday while the mutual fund industry struggled with billions of dollars in withdrawals from money market funds by investors worried about losing their cash.
The article describes the frenzy of withdrawals, but describes the amounts much differently than Kanjorski.
"There's a crisis of confidence in the system," said Putnam chief executive Robert Reynolds.
On Wednesday, investors pulled nearly $90 billion out of money market mutual funds -among the largest single-day withdrawals - and as much as was pulled out during the entire preceding week. Analysts said most of the withdrawals were from corporations and other institutions. The sellers are trying to replace those money market fund holdings with even safer securities such as US Treasury bills, even though they are now paying interest rates as low as 0.071 percent.
While often treated like bank accounts, money market mutual funds are investment vehicles, and therefore can lose money. They also do not have the $100,000 per account FDIC insurance coverage provided to savings, checking, and so-called money market demand accounts available at banks. In addition to paying interest, money market funds attempt to keep their share prices steady at $1, so the value of the deposits remains intact.
Because of the run on money market mutual funds, the Bush administration is now proposing to provide them with FDIC-like insurance protection, The Wall Street Journal reported.
Kanjorski goes on to describe how the Fed and the Treasury dealt with this run by implementing just such an FDIC-like protection on that very day, September 15, when Paulson came to discuss the tremendous drawdown with members of Congress because they realized that was the only way to "stem the tide".
The key in Kanjorski's interview is the "electric run on the banks" to the tune of $500 Billion within an hour. If they hadn't taken action, by 2 pm that afternoon, $5.5 Trillion would have left the banks and the entire global economy would have completely collapsed. The implications of that are truly staggering.
On October 20, nearly a month later, Daniel Gross at Newsweek wrote an article called The Anatomy of Fear in which he described a panic-worthy act by James Cramer, CNBC star, ex-hedge-fund manager, mascot of the 1990s tech boom and the recent bull market, fond of saying "There's always a bull market somewhere". On October 6, 3 weeks after the run on money market accounts, Cramer admitted to the "Today" show's Ann Curry that "somewhere" was now nowhere to be found. "Whatever money you may need for the next five years, please take it out of the stock market right now, this week," he pleaded. "I do not believe that you should risk those assets in the stock markets."
We could understand Cramer's comments precipitating a run on all sorts of investements, but what exactly drove the tremendous volume of electronic transfers on September 15? I could find no documented news the week of September 15 that would prompt such a run, with the possible exception of the Lehman Brothers failure. But why the run on money market funds and not CD's, stocks, bonds or mutual funds? Rush Limbaugh discussed his theories on February 10, 2009, including the fact that Kanjorski is a Pelosi loyalist. Rush said:
It's amazing this was said on C-SPAN on Thursday, January 27th, and nobody picked up on it. We got it from a website called LiveLeak. They were rummaging through things, and they found this. Now, let's assume for a second here that elements of this are true. Let's assume that there was a $550 billion run, electronic run on the banks and money market accounts in one to two hours. The question is who was doing this? Who was withdrawing all this money? And the next question is why? That's where my mind starts exploding, and this is dangerous to have these explosions going this way. Could it have been George Soros? Could it have been a consortium of countries -- Russia, China, Venezuela -- countries that are eager to have Barack Obama elected because they know that will make it easier for them to continue their own foreign policies in the world? In the meantime, five-and-a-half billion dollars in one to two hours, that can probably be confirmed. The five-and-a-half trillion is speculation based on the rate at which money was coming out. We could check that the Fed stopped the trading windows, they closed the window. We do know they were pumping money into the system left and right. And remember when the Federal Reserve loaned elements, $2 trillion and we weren't told who got the money? And we still haven't been told who got the money.
No wonder Barack Obama says "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done." Obviously Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, and they've quite possibly managed to get some astonishing things done.
I've begun to see a meme this week proposing the President's policies are fascist rather than socialist. In 1935, Mussolini wrote the following in The Doctrine of Fascism. Compare and contrast his policies to our current Administration's:
The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State--a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values--interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people. (p. 14)
The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective associations, circulate within the State. (p. 41)
In 1935 Mussolini wrote the following in Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions:
The Corporate State and its Organization (p. 133)
The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and usefu [sic] [typo-should be: useful] instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production.
State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management. (pp. 135-136)
Last but not least, here's Paul Kanjorski's interview with C-SPAN on January 26, 2008:
On November 5 John Kasich wrote: “We must figure out how to reorganize and restructure ourselves so that we can once again command the confidence and respect of not only the members of our own party, but voters of all stripes.”I certainly agree that conservatism must be redefined, and I will offer my suggestions in a moment.But I submit that none of us is ready for the task just yet.
In her 1969 groundbreaker On Death and Dying, Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, M.D., introduced a model known as the Five Stages of Grief: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance.While not every process entails all five stages, the good doctor stated categorically that everyone experiences at least two.But it appears that virtually every conservative commentator has tossed the model out and substituted his own single-phase paradigm: Submission.No sooner had Senator McCain delivered his concession speech than some of my favorite radio talk show hosts – who had been breathing fire just hours earlier – blandly appealed to my optimism as though the proponents of capitalism and self-determination had merely lost a preseason football game.Perhaps they don’t want to appear sore losers.Perhaps they want to come across as “high-roaders.”But in whose eyes?I guarantee you the liberals are so drunk with victory that they don’t care whether we lost sportingly or otherwise.Besides, it is a bit late for conservatives to worry about image.We have been drubbed.We have been bulldozed, hoodwinked, ground into the muck.We fought fair while they pulled every dirty trick in the playbook, and they clobbered us silly.
Where is the outrage, ladies and gentlemen?Do liberals hold a patent on passion?Did someone outlaw indignation while I wasn’t looking?The liberals seem to wield it freely enough.History instructs that we can not move forward until we fully appreciate where we are.Permit me to remind all of those blasé “we’ll-gettum-next-timers” a few facts I can recall off the top of my head about the man who just gave conservatism a bloody nose.Barack Hussein Obama: (1) exhibited blatant sexism during the primaries, then thumbed his nose at feminism by snubbing Senator Clinton in favor of “Conehead” Biden; (2) showed the “common man” his true elitist colors when he rejected public campaign financing and outspent Senator McCain by a factor of 7 to 1; (3) would turn our courts into tools for “redistributive justice”; (4) used government computers and databases to find dirt that would discredit Joe the Plumber; (5) has bragged about the fact that he wants to increase the tax burden on the producers of this country so that he can guarantee a better living for the 30-40% who are freeloaders; (6) was endorsed by both Hugo Chavez and Iran’s parliament; and (7) has little patience for the notion of individual rights.
And another thing. Let us not forget that, despite his silken demeanor, the man is an empty suit when it comes to concrete solutions.I know attorneys because I am one.The first lesson they teach in law school is how to use as many of the biggest words available to say as little as possible.Our new chief executive took that lesson to heart.People are weeping and screaming and dancing in the streets because “we” made history on November 4 by electing the first African American in U.S. history.Unfortunately, a majority of the voters got so caught up in making history that they forgot to ask what kind of person lay beneath the fashionable skin they were about to vote for.Let’s face it.Obama didn’t have to make sense.He needed no substance.And he didn’t need to curry favor with moderates.All he needed was to be a good looking, well-spoken black man who hung out with “cool” people like Madonna and Bruce Springsteen. And he knew it from day one.When I was a boy I was taught that the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s would someday stamp out racism.I’m sorry to report that racism is still with us; it has merely switched sides.
This is the America our complacency has nurtured.So spare me the silver-lining pablum.I want to hear some emotionally healthy yelling and desk-pounding out there.I’m not talking about rioting or bullying.Those of you with an established forum in the media know exactly what to do.I only hope you’ll find the motivation to do it.As for the rest of you, try this as an example.When I moved to a college town some years back, I confess that I allowed my vitriolic liberal brother-in-law to temper my philosophies.Whenever he would rant about the evils he perceived Bush to have perpetrated, I was quick to remind him that the common enemy wasn’t Bush – it was career politicians and elitists in general.When he simmered down I patted myself on the back for "remaining above the fray."But one evening my 9-year-old nephew bragged to me that he had browbeaten a schoolmate of his into “voting” for a liberal in an important race.With the glassy-eyed exuberance of a Hitler youth, he recited the mantra he had heard night after night from his father. I decided I had placated the brother-in-law for the last time.Though I don’t hang out as much with my sister’s family as a result, I can rest assured that my nephew now knows his father’s way of thinking is not the only way.
So conservatism as we know it has been pulverized.It lies dead in the gutter.How do we resurrect it?The first thing we do is reintroduce ourselves to some fundamental principles many of us have forgotten: lower taxes; limited government intervention; disciplined government spending; individualism.All variations of the concepts of tradition and convention must be eliminated from our lexicon.Who do we attract?On the count of three, let’s all scratch our heads.One … two … three … and there is our answer: Real People.But just what is a real person?As a rule of thumb, real people don’t toe the party line or wear the homogenous blue blazer.Take me, for instance.I’m into The Who, Pearl Jam and the Black Keys, but I refuse to buy a suit that is anything but double-breasted.I have tattoos, but I believe shoelaces should be tied, belt loops should be belted and undershorts should be covered in public.I am licensed to carry a concealed weapon, and I will not hesitate to go for the kill shot if someone breaks into my home.On the other hand, I have never understood, and will never understand, the attraction of game hunting.I am an agnostic.I detest abortion, but I think an outright ban ignores reality.Though I am a heterosexual, I don’t understand how letting gays get married diminishes the institution for straights. By the same token, I don’t understand why gays feel the need to impose an archaic religious ritual on an otherwise fulfilling relationship.I don’t indulge in illegal recreational drugs; just the same, I don’t see the harm in legalizing marijuana or cocaine – people bent on destroying themselves will do it one way or another, so there’s no reason to spoil the party for responsible users.Blah, blah, enough about me.
The point is that today’s conservative is not as easy to peg as was the little twerp Michael J. Fox played on prime time television in the 1980s.That is why there were so many so-called Independents out there for Obama and his string-pullers to swoop up this time around.The key to redefining conservatism is to refrain from overdefining it.Agree on a very limited number of core principles, leave the rest of the slate clean and welcome the deluge of fresh new faces with bold ideas who will inevitably flock to your doorstep.
