It’s hard to know where it began. A few months ago I read an article on the internet that claimed that the moment bipartisan amity in Congress began to end was with the uncharitable and immensely hostile denial of confirmation from eminent jurist Robert Bork. After that the tit-for-tat treatment of Rep. Jim Wright showed that the mood had soured on both parties. From that time, despite the fact that Republicans (especially) have sought to nominate fairly moderate candidates like Bush I and Bush II, Dole, and McCain, and despite the fact that even some Democratic candidates (like Clinton and Obama) have tried to at least talk a bipartisan language of rising above divisions, the hostility between liberal and conservative camps has steadily worsened.

During this time my own political views have considerably soured as the political and economic environment has gotten increasingly gloomy. As I have had opportunity to reflect on the shift in my own political approach, even if my underlying worldview has remained the same, I thought it worthwhile to share my story in the hope that it would encourage others to do the same and help us understand aspects of a darkening mood that may apply to others besides myself. I therefore beg the indulgence to talk about my own personal story.

I have never been rich. I have never even been middle class. During my thirty years of life, I have never earned even $40,000 a year. In 2010, I earned about $10,000 a year, if earnings include depleting a Roth IRA, largely through abysmal failures at trying to be a successful salesman, and I had to pay $1,000 of that out of pocket to the IRS. In 2011, I made even less, having spent most of the year as a missionary teacher in Thailand, aside from a couple months working at a company scoring essays for high school students from New Jersey.

And my family has never been wealthy either. My father, who died in 2006, came from a dairy farming family who worked as a school bus driver in Western Pennsylvania (where I was born) to subsidize the money-losing operation. My mother, who collects SSI for various ailments, had her longest and most successful job working in various clerical or lower management positions for the Tampa Housing Authority among a very corrupt group of people, many of whom have spent time in prison for their activities. My stepfather has spent most of his years working as a file clerk, in janitorial work, or as a groundskeeper (made impossible by his advancing age–he’s in his mid 60′s now–as well as a series of surgeries for a recurring accoustic neuroma tumor. Not only have I never been wealthy or middle class, neither has my family as a whole.

I first became passionately interested in politics in 1992, where my sixth grade school held a mock election and I voted for George W. Bush, despite no great enthusiasm for him. My father favored Perot, being a deeply conservative but not Republican person, although he was a secretary for the local bus driver’s union, part of the AFL-CIO until the union was busted (which was a disaster for my father, lowering his wages more than $2/hour, to below $10/hour as a bus driver). That lowering of his standard of living forced him to call the Florida Department of Revenue, Child Support enforcement, for whom my mother worked at the time, and coincidentally my mother answered the phone call from my father. That was embarrassing. My stepfather, especially after his tumors, has had an avid interest in conservative talk radio. Though I’m not generally fond of listening to idiot callers, I’m a fairly patient listener to such things–my mother is not. My mother’s political views are far more liberal, though she likes to pass herself off as far more conservative than she is. I certainly didn’t get my own political views from my family.

In looking at the political situation today, it is easy to think of the capers in Washington DC in the same sort of soap operative view which which I cynically view my own family background. Congressmen engage in insider trading, and show an utter incompetence in passing laws, loading up on the pork and passing laws that they don’t even bother to read (because each law is the size of, or larger than, Middlemarch or War & Peace, and more dull). We elect a majority in the House and Republicans there can’t even bother to hold firm for keeping our runaway debt in line, looking like incompetent bunglers with no backbone and no principles, no ability to restrain our nation from its steadfast and increasingly rapid march into insolvency and decline.

And yet we cannot blame our government for fiscal irresponsibility when we ourselves have the same problem personally. My own hands are not clean in such matters. Grimly I reflect on the $40-$50,000 I owe for college loans, the credit cards, and other debts, without seeing any ability to pay them off given the current sorry state of my personal economy. I make $33 a month teaching, and almost all of that goes for food. As much as I believe in fiscal restraint, you need resources to pay off debts, and neither our state or federal governments nor many of us ourselves (like I) have the means to become solvent. It bothers me, though, deeply, and it also bothers me how little the debt seems to bother those in Washington.

In 2008, I recognized that our Republic was at a crucial moment. I felt that difficult times were on the horizon, though I had no way of knowing how prolonged or difficult they would end up for me personally. I supported McCain in 2008, hoping that his show of good faith as a bridge between Republicans and Democrats would help provide a chance at avoiding disaster. That was not to be, as the Democrats elected the least qualified candidate for office in at least the last 150 years (if not ever) and proceeded to turn what was a dangerous societal situation into impending disaster. As 2010 turned into 2011 and a year was spent fretting over our betrayal of loyal allies, endless sensationalized unrest in the Middle East and North Africa, and a continuing series of debt crises where politicians played kick the can and refused to act like statesmen, my concern grew as the worldwide mood darkened.

Having seen that there is no interest in a principled or reasonable solution to our political and economic crisis from Democrats, nor any spine or backbone from our elected Republican Senators and Representatives, I feel as pessimistic as many people here are. And yet the spineless Republicans are spineless because they don’t feel as if their voters have their back. Will voters turn on them if a government shutdown happens and those who suck at the teat of big government (like my mother) have their Social Security or welfare checks or EBT taken away? Probably. Are the 48% of voters who pay nothing to the government willing to pay something, anything, to have a share in government? Probably not? Are those spineless politicians failing absolutely to provide a vision of why drastic (if painful) action is necessary for all of us to face and showing us an example by taking a cut themselves in their own standard of living to show they are serious about reducing unsustainable deficits? Absolutely. We all share some blame in the matter.

And so I have become convinced that when there is no choice but to either slash at the entitlements that are strangling our nation and hastening our decline as a superpower, and that day is rapidly approaching, there will be war. Those who are politically and economically profiting from corporate bailouts or subsidies, whether they be crony capitalists at companies like Bain Capital, Iowa corn farmers, Obama’s buddies at Solyndra, or ordinary people who receive their monthly check from the government or who spend a year or two on unemployment, will not accept the loss of their funding.

And sooner or later (and probably sooner), the golden goose of the taxpayer will no longer be able to keep funding endless runaway deficits as interest rates on debt service increase and as personal insolvency becomes more and more common of a threat. The only options at that point will be massive default or hyperinflation, and we will all be much worse off then. But we will still blame our Congress. We will blame the poor schmuck in office who is unlucky enough to have to explain to the American people that we are as bankrupt economically as we are morally and politically. We will point the fingers at others, like the protestors who blame the 1% but don’t see that they too, like me, helped make this situation worse by gambling that a little debt now would mean greater opportunities for wealth later. Those opportunities for good jobs at high salaries never came, those days of increased salaries to pay off student loans never arrived. And we are all to blame in some fashion, for playing along with the game for far too long.

And so, as the political mood of this country has darkened, I take a look at myself and recognize that I have done my fair share (and perhaps more) to elect people with no spine to fight against our decline. I have engaged in personal behavior that has endangered my own well being and contributed to the burden borne by society at large. And there is nothing I can do about what I have done–or what anyone else has done–and I do not know if there is a time and an opportunity left to make amends or to reverse the damage. And if that is so for someone who is highly educated, deeply interested in politics, and deeply reflective and concerned for the well-being not only of myself but also of my people, how much is it true of those who reflect less or are less concerned with the world outside of their own lives and favorite reality television shows? A republic like ours gets the leaders it deserves, and if we don’t like the mayors or the school superintendents or the state senators or the governors or the Congressmen or the Presidential candidates we have, we need to take a look at ourselves, because such candidates have to come from among our people and have to receive the support of the people. Unless we are noble and principled and honorable ourselves, and unless we value such qualities in our leaders, how can we expect good leaders to save our nation from ourselves if we ourselves cannot take our hand from the cookie jar?

There are some striking and uncomfortable similarities between populism as it is expressed in Thailand and the United States. Since 2000, we have all been made familiar with the map of the United States that shows red, blue, and purple areas, and given that we are here on a site called “Red State” it is (or should be) very clear which side we are on. What may not be as obvious is that a similar divide and a similar color scheme exists in Thailand, where the red stands for the populist supporters of ousted and controversial ex-Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra (whose younger sister Yinluck Shinawatra is the current Prime Minister of the country) and where the yellow stands for the elites who support the military and palace establishment.

To be sure, there are some profound differences between Red State and the red shirts (which is why I am not a supporter of the red shirts). The Red Shirts are a cult of personality, centered around the ex-Prime Minister (though, to be fair, the yellow shirts are a cult of personality as well around the aging and very frail 84-year old King Bhomipol). Additionally, the policies of the red shirts are pretty standard socialist prescriptions for what ails society, a Obamacare-esque “30 baht card” that will cure any disease for 30 baht (roughly a dollar), increased minimum wages for the poor unskilled laborers, anti-American rhetoric (in all fairness, we do arm and train Thailand’s highly repressive army), and plans to subsidize technology for tots by providing an ipad (or similar high-tech educational item) for every schoolkid. Very few people here (except maybe for those enamored with Romneycare or who found Ron Paul’s anti-American rhetoric persuasive) would find much to support among these policies.

On the other hand, though, there is a substantial and worrisome area of common ground between Red State and the red shirts that shows deep divides within the democratic orders of both nations. For one, the politics of Thailand and the United States are highly regional. The red shirts have won every free election since 2000 (elections are usually held every three or four years, though not with our scheduled regularity), even though they have twice been removed from power by military coups (in 2006 and 2008). The base of the support for the red shirts is in northern and northeastern Thailand. Northern Thailand is where I live, and the Shinawatra family is based out of Chiang Mai (on whose outskirts I reside), the old capital of the Lanna Kingdom. Northeast Thailand is largely inhabited by Isan Laotian-Thai inhabitants who are the poorest people of Thailand and whose ancestors were captives/slaves of the earliest Chakra dynasty of kings (during the time of our early Republic in the late 1700′s and early 1800′s) who once ruled over Laos. Neither of these groups of people, even though together they make up a (slim) majority of the entire political body of Thailand’s notoriously fractured political system, are given full respect or legitimacy by the Thai elites and establishment. Rather, these areas are considered “Flyover country” by the elites who are centered in the South of Thailand (where Thailand fights against a Muslim insurrection and whose people especially support the military for understandable reasons) and especially in Bangkok.

The United States has a similar political order. America’s cultural and political elites are largely “blue state” dwellers, whether we are talking about Washington DC, New York City, New England, or California (or the corrupt city of Chicago). Likewise, the rural and Southern core of the Republican party does not have a great deal of legitimacy with these elites who sneer at those who believe in God, oppose infanticide, disbelieve in Darwinian evolution, and prefer personal responsibility to top-down socialist mandates. For such elites the areas where Red Staters are most at home are “flyover country.” Those of us who, like myself, are very sensitive to such matters find this extremely offensive.

The problems that exist are ones that elections alone cannot solve. Winning political power does not grant Republicans legitimacy–that must be fought for, as our politicians must be reminded over and over again that we don’t elect them to roll over and play dead for the scraps offered by Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. We elect them to fight for what is left that is noble and good about the American Republic, something they do not seem to remember well, preferring the cowardly ways of compromise to a principled struggle for the soul of the United States of America. The same is true in Thailand. Elites do not care that the populists from the North and the Northeast win elections, because in their mind those politicians are still “peasants” who can be put in their place whenever they get too uppity by a military coup.

Clearly the situation is serious. For a republic to endure there must be a common identity and a legitimacy given to the will of the people within those grounds where majority rule is to reign. Matters of conscience are not up for vote, but matters of policy are and ballots ought to be respected over bullets. Where this legitimacy of the circumscribed will of the people is denied, elections are either shams to pretend as if the people have their say while nothing ever changes or are virtual wars fought for spoils and corrupt gain, where politicians can choose winners and losers based on holding offices.

Eventually, if respect within a society declines to a point where both sides in a conflict see the other side as the enemy of the people, then an actual civil war is on the way. I am deeply concerned that the politics of both Thailand and the United States are approaching that sad fate. There are only two ways to avoid that fate–for those who are disrespected to surrender all goals of holding legitimate power and an acceptance of a permanent position of second-class status, or for those selfish and corrupt elites to voluntarily give up the offices that they have so shamefully abused for the preservation of the Republic that they claim to serve. The first is unacceptable, as it means surrendering our principles and accepting the domination of Pelosi and Reid and Obama and all of their ilk. The second requires that our adversaries love the American Republic more than their own power and position. Clearly, given such odds, I am deeply pessimistic for the long term health of my beloved country, as well as the country in which I now reside, which faces a very similar and equally insoluble dilemma.

Note:  This entry has been cross-posted at Edge Induced Cohesion [1].

I do not consider myself a libertarian. This is not to say that there are not some definitions of libertarian that would not apply to me (there are), but rather when I look at what passes for “mainstream” libertarian I want nothing to do with whatsoever unless I am wearing a hazmat suit. As someone who is deeply interested in political philosophy, I have noted, and found it highly intriguing that in most of the world (apart from the United States), libertarian is considered one of the many types of socialist worldviews, on the anarchic socialistic side. This is not endearing whatsoever to me, though its American equivalent is often scarcely less appealing.

Only a moral people deserves (and receives) freedom. Where libertarian arguments fail is in assuming that morality is merely optional when it comes to freedom. This is not so. Self-government is a prerequisite for liberty. If someone cannot restrain themselves then others will restrain them, and that is something that our world is witnessing in all of its concern over civility and dignity and respect. Liberty without morality is anarchy, and most people have a very low tolerance for anarchy. The moment social order is lost, a lot of people clamor for the first law and order candidate who is willing to use the power of the state to enforce the rule of law. And that usually means a lot of brown shirts or #occupy types complaining about police brutality and occupying a jail cell without a lot of sympathy from the general public.

Even someone like myself who dislikes authoritarian crackdowns on principle (being someone who is deeply concerned about rotting in jail cells for being a bit to free to mouth very strong opinions) has very little sympathy for those who ruin and threaten the loss of liberty for the rest of us. The problem is that it is very difficult to avoid the extremes of anarchy and tyranny when society at large has lost the ability or inclination of self-government. No free society is possible where people do not discipline their own conduct and show respect for others, and clearly that respect and moral conduct is breaking down, and has been for decades now.

It is not an accident that times of crisis threaten the social order. A loss of respect for authority, especially among the young (who don’t remember how this turned out the last few dozen times and are not inclined to examine the bloody history), often leads to revolts and uprisings that alienate defenders of moderate social order. In the face of unwashed philistine anarchists, most people (myself included) prefer a crackdown, as ominous a precedent as that is. Such actions as disrupting the social order are usually counter-productive, therefore, in defending liberty or in trying to reverse a societal trend away from liberty. It also would tend to harden divisions within a society by making some people appear beyond the pale of political acceptability, therefore removing peaceful ways of dealing with real and serious societal problems.

At its core, libertarianism (at least as it is defined in the United States) desires freedom from government restrictions. And in a burdensome regulatory climate as we have, that is not unacceptable on its face. The devil is always in the details, though. If one desires freedom for the wrong reasons, it discredits freedom for others by making you a threat that has to be protected against. If a thief desires there to be less government regulations so they can embezzle or steal with impunity, such a person is a threat to the preservation of a free market order. For a free market to work, there are conditions that must be met, including a society that is morally upright enough not to steal or cheat its customers and local communities and families that are willing to take care of and support the interests of the population at large, especially when creative destruction destroys companies and eliminates jobs for people.

All too often, libertarian arguments appear to belong to support one of a small set of illegitimate social goals. One goal is the supposed elimination of the imaginary problem of legislating morality. Every law and every legal order legislates morality, because every law exists on a moral and ethical worldview. A law that says “thou shalt not steal” is a law that defends the right of people to their personal property. A law that says “thou shalt not commit adultery” recognizes the gross immorality of those who betray their covenantal vows as traitors. Likewise, a law that permits any sort of activity recognizes that as “permissible” and “allowable,” and therefore morally acceptable. If that is not the case according to the whole biblical standard, such a legal order is corrupt and ungodly by definition. And likewise, it would follow that anyone who supports an ungodly and overly permissive legal order therefore is not a genuine Christian by definition because one would be a political antinomian.

And that is why I do not consider myself a libertarian, because I am opposed to antinomian heresies wherever they might pop up, whether that is in politics where someone says that the sins of someone else are no concern to me, especially when there are societal blessings for obedience to (God’s) law and societal punishments for disobedience. In such circumstances the morality of other people is very much a matter of deep concern for any godly individual. After all, let us not forget that in Romans 1:28-32, a lengthy list of sins (which are very prevalent in Western society) is condemned with eternal destruction, not only for those who commit such sins but for those who are tolerant and indulgent about them.

And that is a serious matter. After all, to desire liberty from government taxation so that one can avoid one’s responsibility for Christian charity is itself ungodly. Desiring liberty from laws that prevent the exploitation of children so that one can exploit them is similarly ungodly. The reason for a great deal of government restrictions is the inability of people (especially businesses) to govern themselves. I too would like to be free of burdensome regulations, if I could trust people to be self-disciplined and not in need of (more inefficient and costly) external discipline. I do not have such trust in others, though.

A major reason for the screwed up and overly large leviathan state we struggle with in the Western world (including the United States) is the fact that other institutions have fallen down on the job. The responsibility for education is first and foremost a responsibility of parents. But if parents take no interest and responsibility in the education and upbringing of their children, their lack of responsibility will create a gap that allows others (first local communities and then higher levels of government) increased power to fill what is lacking, at increased costs and decreased effectiveness.

The same is true for charity–it is first the responsibility of families to help their own, and for local communities and congregations to help their own people, whose circumstances they should be aware of, and who may provide encouragement on how to avoid remaining a “burden,” and opportunities to do so, if possible. The more such responsibilities are left to others, the less knowledge and help and greater corruption and inefficiency are part of the necessary provision for those who are without. If you want government out of such business, it means taking responsibility for such business yourself on a lower level.

And very rarely, if ever, do I see libertarians making such arguments about the need to bolster families and local communities. I do see federalists making those arguments, and I support them, but I do not see libertarians doing so. Instead, I see libertarians foaming at the mouth for the opportunity to get rid of laws that protect the poor or the common folk or children from exploitation for others. Child labor laws–struck down. Laws that restrict immorality–done away with. The end goal of such behavior is not a virtuous republic, but rather an anarchial state of bellum omnium contra omnes. That’s not a state many of us, myself included, want any part of.

And that is the conundrum that libertarians find themselves in–being seen as anarchists and moral antinomians who desire to exploit and take advantage of others by force or fraud without any recourse to courts of law or the protection of government. If such people truly desired the well being of our republic, or any other, they would seek to rebuild institutions at the lower level that have atrophied and failed to fulfill their God-given responsibilities. Then they would have the credibility to speak out against the tyrannies of government, knowing that necessary tasks would not be left undone by attacking our leviathan state. Such libertarians appear to be entirely absent, however. All we have are pro-pot smoking isolationist libertines who are unworthy of the slightest support or legitimacy, fiddling and diddling while our republic burns. Such people, rather than being praiseworthy defenders of liberty, are a national disgrace, and an invitation to divine judgment if we do not judge our own house first.

[1] http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2011/12/22/a-thin-line-between-libertarian-and-libertine/