On Achieving Senior Citizen Status

My 65th birthday approaches. Unbelievable! It doesn’t seem so long ago that I looked in the mirror and for the first time realized that I was not a kid any more. Actually, that moment was about thirty five years ago. It was very disturbing then to not look young since I still felt young. Well, now not only do I not look young, I don’t feel so young either.

Father Time and Mother Nature have taken their toll. Knee problems have forced me to abandon tennis and they are threatening my cycling ‘career’ as well. My wife—who has her own physical issues—and I rarely go dancing any longer, and when we do, it is pretty tame. I won’t speak of other physical activities at which we formerly jointly excelled. Incredibly, although of course we are not biologically related, we both suffer from similar forms of IBS and our diet has become so bland that eating is no longer the unmitigated joy that it once was. We still remember each other’s names, but where the keys are, whether today’s medication has been ingested yet or not, and exactly why I got out of that chair and where I intended to go—well, those are too much to ask.

When I allow my gaze to lift from my progressively decrepit physique to the state of the world, the view does not improve. I see a European continent whose people are intent on committing cultural, religious and demographic suicide. I see a vicious and evil new adversary whose depraved visions embrace suicide bombing, public executions, oppression of women, religious bigotry and a feudal society devoid of the rule of law. I see a beleaguered and increasingly exhausted State of Israel whose continued existence is in grave doubt. Domestically, I see political acrimony of extreme proportions between two increasingly divergent philosophies for governing our fair land. I see out of control entitlement programs; a behemoth known as the federal government that does more harm than good; an educational system that does not inculcate American youth with pride and love of country; a media that poisons the cultural atmosphere with unspeakable violence and filth; and a nation that seems to grow weary of our lonely and unappreciated role as the protector of the free world. Finally, the Redskins stink, and since they are saddled with a young, stubborn and arrogant owner, they might be consigned to mediocrity for decades.

It’s enough to make me depressed. But fortunately, when I am drawn in that direction, I try to think more positively. That mirror reveals not only an ‘old guy,’ but also someone with all his teeth, most of his hair, and a still slim figure. My wife’s dance card and dietary choices might be limited, but she still has the same beautiful face and captivating smile that felled me for life 50 years ago. I have two wonderful sons, devoted daughters-in-law and three fantastic grandchildren—all of whom live nearby. I also have siblings, nieces, cousins and many great friends with whom I am close—and a healthy octogenarian parent who is an inspiration to all of us. In addition, my wife and I recently found the wherewithal to purchase a vacation home, about which we have dreamed all our lives. I’ve traveled the world and I had, and still have, a great job. Finally, the Redskins might stink, but I did personally attend two of their Super Bowl victories. All of these experiences, relationships and memories more than compensate for the aches and pains and misplaced keys.

A similarly revised assessment of the ‘state of the world’ is in order. During my lifetime I have been privileged to witness my country lead the free world to victory over fascism, and then over communism. I saw the conversion of bloodthirsty dictatorships in Germany and Japan into friendly democracies. We almost pulled off the same feat in Russia—not quite, but the situation is still far better than during the Cold War when nuclear destruction threatened the world. More people live in free societies today than one could have imagined several decades ago. The economic prosperity that we enjoy—fueled by a combination of imaginative technological innovations and a magnificent American work ethic—is spreading around the world. Life expectancy is up, the air and rivers are cleaner, and despite the fact that our country’s population is more diverse (in terms of race, ethnic identity and religion) than ever before, we live in a peaceful society, governed according to the rule of law. All of America’s citizens enjoy unprecedented liberty and the freedoms guaranteed to us by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We are privileged to live in a truly unique society in the history of the world.

So what’s the moral of the story? For me there are three:

1. Human beings come in two varieties—the ‘glass is half empty’ type and the ‘glass is half full’ type. In which group you sit is largely a function of your intrinsic nature; you don’t really have a choice about it. To those of you in the latter category, count your blessings. It’s wonderful to be inherently optimistic, cheerful and upbeat—even when the situation doesn’t warrant. But for those of us in the former category, we live with the curse of involuntarily seeing the dark side of all situations. We cannot avoid anticipating the potentially doleful consequences of uncertain circumstances, our pessimistic thought processes always crowding out the possibility of cheery outcomes. The point is that even with self-recognition, it is difficult to control the impulses toward unfavorable assessments of event outcomes. But outlining both sides of the coin—personal and general—as I did above helps me to suppress my natural inclination toward accentuating the negative when contemplating my or my country’s condition.

2. The following is trite but true. Life’s a ride; enjoy the ride! Most people upon reaching senior citizen status can count a multitude of good times, and of bad times, over the course of their life’s journey. More of the same is probably in store for the rest of the trip. Well, we ought to appreciate the fact that the scenery has been interesting rather than boring on our journey. Life is a magical gift and the trip through it is an adventure, which, although sometimes painful, is to be savored.

3. Finally, I recall a lesson that the aforementioned octogenarian tried to teach me when I was a kid growing up in the tenements of the Bronx. I’m not sure we qualified as poor, but we lived at a standard of living that was significantly below that of many of America’s poor today. When I would complain about things I could not have or about unfortunate life occurrences, said parent would counsel me to be ‘grateful for what you’ve got.’ A simple lesson that is not as easily taught in today’s culture, which emphasizes the acquisition of material goods and the alleviation of every societal and financial problem by a ‘benevolent’ government. Invoking that lesson, I assert that reaching 65 is not so terrible. As they say, it sure beats the alternative.

In 2008 the Choice is between Socialism Lite and Socialism Lighter

I don’t know why they don’t change the name of the Democratic Party to the Socialist Party. After all, each of its numerous candidates for President in 2008 espouses ideas straight out of the socialist playbook. They make no secret of the fact that they believe that:
* the US should have a big government, empowered to deal with any and all problems in American society. (Of course these include those that are real and those dreamt up by the liberal special interest cohorts.)
* there is absolutely no issue in or aspect of American life, which should not be subject to the purvey of the federal government.
* government bureaucrats and the elite intellectuals that advise them are better equipped to deal with America’s problems than are consumers, businessmen and investors who actually encounter the problems.
* said bureaucrats and intellectual advisors are more trustworthy than local political officials, policemen, clergymen, community leaders and certainly than any businessman.
* issues like global warming, the fairness doctrine, teenagers without health insurance and a prison housing jihadist murderers in Cuba are far more important than the impending collapse of our entitlement programs, the fear of a repeat attack on the mainland by Al Qaeda, the filth that pervades our popular culture and an avalanche of indigestible aliens who pour across our borders.
* those who create the economic opportunities in the US should shoulder a disproportionate share of the burden of caring for those who compete less effectively—in short, the successful should be compelled to share their bounty with the less successful. (This amounts to redistribution of wealth; nothing could be more socialistic.)

It is true that the Democratic candidates are not advocating the nationalization of banks, airlines, utilities and General Motors. And although many of the policies they advocate would severely limit the individuals’ right to do with his property as he wishes, they do claim to respect the sanctity of private property. But that is why I label their philosophy socialism lite instead of flat out socialism. In some sense it is an even more insidious version of government control of the means of production than is the method of pure socialism. Indeed, it is a huge burden on the government to manage all the industry, farms, utilities and finances of a nation. The experience of those countries that have tried to do it reveals how poor a job the government does and, as explained in F.A. Hayek’s classic book, The Road to Serfdom, inevitably must do. So instead of taking over the machinery of society, the viceroys of the Democratic Party have decided to let those better equipped to run things do so, except that the government will put them in a severe straight jacket of rules, policies, laws and regulations—backed up by sharp penalties if they fail to comply. In this way, the feds can effectively control almost everything, and thereby achieve the socialists’ collectivist and redistributive goals, without explicitly running much of anything. It might be lite, but as we have come to see in Europe, it is remarkably effective in establishing “the modern welfare state,” or what I have called socialism lite.

Through government legislation, taxation, borrowing, spending, regulation and jawboning the redistributors get to achieve their objectives and, since private property is still permissible, the elites get to keep their dachas in Hollywood and Manhattan.

But here is the kicker that fills conservatives with dismay. The opponents of the socialist-leaning Democratic candidates, that is the slew of Republican candidates for the presidency, does not present a fundamentally different picture. Which of those candidates asserts that the socialist path, which the country has trod over the last century, is flawed and should be abandoned? Which of them points out that the collectivist policies of the New Deal, Great Society and whatever sequel Hillary has in store for us run completely counter to the ideals of our founding fathers and represent a betrayal of core American values? Which of them proclaims as did Ronald Reagan that “Government is not the solution, government is the problem?” Some of them pay lip service to these ideas, but rendered cynical by experience with two faux conservative Bush presidencies, conservatives find it hard to believe that any of them really mean it. In the years since the Gingrich revolution in 1994, but especially during the years in which the Republicans controlled both the White House and the Congress, we have seen an explosion in federal programs, borrowing and spending. We have a massive new government bureaucracy in the Department of Homeland Security, intrusive and interventionist measures like McCain-Feingold “campaign finance reform,” business-bashing processes under Sarbanes-Oxley and the complete failure of the federal government to deal with illegal immigration. It isn’t a total disaster—e.g., taxes have been lowered—but by any reasonable measure, the expansion of the government, the acceptance of the pervasive role of government in the life of the citizenry, the collectivist approach to problems, all of these have advanced under the Republicans. Again, Republican policies have not been as egregious as those of their liberal Democratic colleagues—e.g., they are more respectful of the traditional culture, they appoint judges who do not willfully attack the Constitution, they are willing to pursue a strong national defense, and by in large they are not protectionists. But they are big government Republicans. Some call them big government conservatives, but that is an oxymoron. I believe the name socialism lighter is an apt handle for their governing philosophy. (This issue is explored in greater depth in my book, Liberal Hearts and Conservative Brains, see http://home.comcast.net/~ronlipsman)

Among the potential Republican candidates perhaps only Gingrich fails to earn the epithet (i.e., socialist of the lite, or lighter variety). But he has taken himself out of the race. (He was probably unable to secure the nomination and even if he had, the liberal media would have done such a hatchet job on him—comparable to Goldwater’s thrashing—that it is highly doubtful he could have been elected). So it will come down to Rudy against Hillary or Fred against Obama or maybe even Romney against Edwards (now that guy really scares me). In the end, like conservatives all over the country I will hold my nose and pull the lever next to the elephant. Oh how I rue one of Reagan’s few mistakes—he neglected to groom a successor.  The US is paying dearly.

Is Maryland the Most Liberal State?

If you were to ask a pundit to identify the most liberal state in the nation, the answer would likely be Taxachusetts or Vermont. While these are excellent choices, I would like to argue that the People’s Republic of Maryland should receive serious consideration for this dubious honor. Here is the evidence:

 

1. The State legislature is more than 2-1 Democratic (nearly 3-1 in the House) and has been that way for decades.

2. There were no Republican governors for more than 30 years and the one elected in 2002 was very far from conservative. That did not prevent his defeat by an ultra-liberal Democrat in 2006.

3. The State income tax is very high and has none of the investor-friendly features recently incorporated into the federal income tax (e.g., reduced rates on dividend or capital gains income).

4. The State’s other taxes and fees are high also.

5. The State has been on a drunken spending binge (not unlike that of the federal government) during the long reign of liberal Democrats, and there is no evidence that its exorbitant expenditures on various programs dear to the hearts of liberal special interests groups has improved the quality of life for State residents—even those targeted by the profligate spending.

6. The State’s less than business-friendly atmosphere has discouraged business development and economic growth. Two examples of this phenomenon, the punitive HMO tax and the Wal-Mart tax, are discussed at some length in my book, Liberal Hearts and Conservative Brains (see http://home.comcast.net/~ronlipsman).

7. It has been 20 years since Maryland voted Republican in a presidential election.

8. State officials have laid out the welcome mat for illegal aliens, setting up day laborer centers, issuing drivers licenses, providing generous welfare benefits, accommodating language inadequacies and offering in-state tuition.

9. The abortion rates in Maryland rank in the top ten in the nation, and in the top five depending exactly on how they are measured.

10. The new Democratic governor has proposed a sweeping series of tax increases and new spending programs that absolutely reek of “redistribution of wealth.”

 

Well, Maryland might or might not be the most liberal state in the nation, but it is certainly in the top five. Actually, the liberal hegemony that it enjoys is a consequence of a remarkable concentration of power. This is best illustrated by the gubernatorial election of 1994. A very liberal Democrat was pitted against a female Republican, who was actually conservative. Of the State’s 24 counties, she won 21 of them—but narrowly lost the election. There is so much power and population concentrated in Baltimore city and the two suburban DC counties that the three together outweighed the remainder of the State. This urban/suburban vs. suburban/rural dichotomy reflects the situation in the nation as a whole as was clearly represented in the dramatic, color-coded maps of the Bush-Kerry vote on a county-wide basis. In land mass the country is overwhelmingly conservative, whereas in population we are almost evenly divided. But not in Maryland since 1994. The few blue counties have far more people than the more numerous but declining number of red ones. Many are predicting that the country will experience a similar trend—the election of 2006 is cited as proof and 2008 is expected to ratify it. We’ll see.

 

But if it turns out to be true, then as they experienced in the 1930s and 1960s, the people of the United States are about to witness a frantic leap to the left. Our “modern welfare state” will lurch even further toward collectivism—a polite euphemism for socialism—wherein the people are hypnotized to look to the government (federal and state, and local too at times) to solve all their problems, real and imagined. The notions of a laissez faire free market economy, limited government, low taxes, respect for the traditional culture, and need for a strong national defense, all will be shunted aside in a whirlwind expansion of the nanny state. Yes the country does have many serious problems: it is under attack by a virulent form of Islam; it has constructed unsustainable entitlement programs to which it is addicted and refuses to face the fact that they are Ponzi schemes headed along the tracks toward a brick wall; and there is too much moral rot (rampant pornography, encouragement of teen promiscuity, partial birth abortion and assisted suicide, denigration of the traditional family). Should the liberals regain a firm hand on the reigns of power, they will fix these problems by instituting recycled versions of the same policies that caused the problems in the first place. Equally bad, they will set the wheels of government in motion to fix problems that don’t even exist: the uninsured health care crisis, global warming, lack of diversity and corporate greed. As with the original “crises,” their collectivist and heavy handed government schemes will create real problems that they will urge we fix with yet more government intervention.

 

Those of us who believe in individual liberty, limited government and free markets will find the going mighty unpleasant should the collectivist, big government, social justice crowd take control of the farm again. It will be particularly hard on those of us trying to keep our heads above water in the People’s Republic of Maryland.

What has the Great Depression got to do with a Dying Europe?

I just finished reading two excellent books dealing with the two topics in the title: Amity Shlaes new study of the Great Depression, The Forgotten Man (HarperCollins, 2007) and Walter Laqueur’s The Last Days of Europe (St. Martin’s Press, 2007). The former contains a close examination of several key players in Roosevelt’s New Deal, what motivated them, what they wanted to achieve, what they actually did, and a penetrating look at the consequences of their actions. The latter presents an objective description of some of the severe problems that plague European society at the beginning of the twenty first century—problems which have been declared insoluble by some writers and which promise to radically transform the continent, perhaps forever. These include: a startling low birth rate accompanied by the explosive growth of a Muslim immigrant community; the failure to assimilate those immigrants; a crumbling welfare system that is exacerbated by the aforementioned demographic trends; barren churches in comparison to crowded mosques; the inability to project military strength; weak labor productivity, which, together with other ominous business indicators, portends a precarious economic future; and the surrender of sovereignty to an unelected, unresponsive and authoritarian European Union.

There are two disparate features that tie the books together in my mind. First, they are both written in a curiously dispassionate style with an extremely limited amount of editorializing, personal opinion and prescriptions for solutions. Both authors state the facts as they see them and largely leave it to the reader draw his own conclusions. The second feature they share is an enormous undercurrent of collectivism, a powerful political and economic force, which, both authors reveal, motivates and animates the main protagonists in both books.

The story of the Great Depression and the consequent New Deal that FDR unleashed to tame it has been etched, indeed burned into the consciousness of any American who was educated in the United States since the 1940s. The story asserts that: the Depression was a phenomenon brought on by the excesses of business, the greed of corporations and the individuals that controlled them, and unsavory practices in the financial industry; the inability of the little or ‘forgotten man’ to deal with the cataclysmic events that overwhelmed him was total; therefore, the need for a counterweight was compelling and that role was naturally assigned to the US Government; in fulfilling that role, the imaginative and heroic programs instituted by the New Deal—which reversed the disastrous policies of Herbert Hoover—conquered the Depression and turned the economy around; and finally, its proven success legitimized the paradigm of the modern welfare state in which the government—through taxation, regulation, borrowing and spending, and jawboning—serves as a powerful check on the excesses of big business and helps to ensure the prosperity of the country, but in a much more fair and equitable fashion than an unrestricted free market could deliver. All of us absorbed these ‘truths’ from our teachers, from the media, and from the politicians—of both parties, until they became self-evident and beyond dispute. There have been some lonely voices crying out over the years that it was all a myth—Milton Friedman comes to mind—but by in large this interpretation of the Great Depression and the New Deal survives virtually unchallenged in the educational and media institutions of the United States.

Ms. Shlaes clearly does not accept this received wisdom. But she undercuts it not via a political polemic, or through the presentation of mountains of contrary data or by citing experts or higher authorities; rather, she offers an in-depth and fascinating portrayal of some of the key players in both the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations. Through a dispassionate presentation of their professed beliefs and, more importantly, their actions, she leads the reader to some unmistakable conclusions: while it was true that Hoover’s actions were disastrous (e.g., his support of the horrendous Smoot-Hawley tariffs), he in fact engaged in the same kind of interventionist, aggressive regulatory, business-bashing and collectivist schemes that his successor deployed; Roosevelt did not have a firm game plan in mind, instead he made it up as he went along and many of his schemes were mutually contradictory—but a constant throughout his first two terms was an extreme animus for business and businessmen; contrary to the myth it seems highly probable that not only did Roosevelt’s laws, agencies and programs not alleviate the Great Depression—they in fact deepened it and prolonged it; the so-called ‘depression within the depression’ that hit the country in the mid/late 30s was a direct consequence of his policies (e.g., the undistributed profits tax) and is clear proof  that the New Deal prolonged and intensified the economic downturn, rather than rescued our country; and finally, by the end of the thirties, large segments of the public and even members of the administration—inspired by the arguments of people like Wendell Wilkie, who were originally sympathetic but could not ignore the damage the New Deal was doing—turned against the failed policies of the New Deal, leading to a gradual ease up on the regulation, business bashing and collectivist approach. If not for that late 30s ‘course correction’ and if the world had not clearly been descending into a major war, Roosevelt might very well have been defeated in 1940. The point is not made in Ms. Shlaes’ book, but others have asserted that the national emergency of World War II in the 1940s, in which the federal government played a dominant role, institutionalized the phenomenon of massive government intervention in society—a phenomenon whose roots were established in the collectivist policies of the New Deal in the 1930s. By the end of the War, the expansive government that we know today was a permanent fixture, and since then it has gone almost unquestioned that the federal government has a vast role to play in the economic and social life of the American nation.

Ms. Schlaes says virtually none of this explicitly. Rather, by letting the movers and shakers of the New Deal, as well as certain private citizens, act and speak for themselves, she makes the conclusions I’ve indicated painfully evident. It is amazingly understated and very subtle, yet crystal clear; quite a feat to bring off.

Much of the same can be said of the book by Mr. Laqueur.  He examines the history, movements and trends over the last generation that have brought to its current perilous state. He highlights: the carnage that Europe inflicted upon itself in two world wars; the determination not to ever subject themselves to a repeat performance; the intention to achieve that goal by creating economic, social and political structures that would guarantee it; the overwhelming impulse to establish a virtually utopian welfare state—very long on social guarantees, very short on hard work, profit, competition and military capabilities.  Furthermore, their idealism led Europeans to divest themselves of their empires and to the desire to do well by their former subjects, including inviting them into their home and asking little from them in the way of good behavior. Mr. Laqueur engages in no screaming about demographic calamities, racial and religious polarization, indigestible minorities, stagnant economies held back by a poor work ethic, burning jealousy of the United States, or appeasement of the Soviet Union followed by an equally appalling appeasement of Islamofascism. There are only cool presentations of facts, attitudes and trends, descriptions of relevant organizations in European minority communities (factually done without obsessing about the fact that many are seditious and traitorous), and a somewhat laudatory explanation of attempts to build a more enlightened and peaceful European society. Once again the understatement is remarkably effective. The reader is left to draw his own conclusions, but the path Mr. Laqueur leads them down doesn’t leave a lot of room for diverse conclusions. The title of the book indicates clearly what Mr. Laqueur sees as Europe’s destination.

Thus we have two books dealing with very different subjects, but very much alike in writing style and in underlying theme. And both are important books for Americans to read. How can we understand where we want to go and how to get there if we misunderstand where we have been? School children are ignorant of the names Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, but they learn a great deal about John Dewey, John Maynard Keynes, Sinclair Lewis and even Karl Marx. The views of the latter crew would be anathema to our founders and if we set our sails according to the charts laid out by these collectivists, we will create a society vastly different from what has been the nature of American society from its inception until the twentieth century. The exhortation toward collectivism and aggressive state power embodied in the ideas of the men who concocted the New Deal and the European Union represent a mortal threat to the nature of the American society that our forefathers created. The lack of respect for individual freedom and liberty also constitute a violation of the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Ms. Schlaes book, in its understated way, makes a powerful case for reexamining the Great Depression and the New Deal. Similarly, Mr. Laqueur’s book should cause the bureaucrats in Brussels and the citizens of the continent to rethink their course of action over the last generation. Much of Europe’s dilemma is due to its collectivist mentality, its utopian philosophies, and its fear of rugged individualism and laissez faire economics. (Its fear and betrayal of its classic Christian religious heritage is playing a role too, but that is not addressed in Mr. Laqueur’s book and I shan’t say more on that here.). These forces are also present in the United States although we have resisted them more effectively than has Europe. For how much longer? If we pay attention to the cliff off of which Europe is about to plunge, and if we correctly assay the philosophy and legacy of the New Deal, then maybe we can avoid Europe’s fate.