The recent sophomoric prank of packing the SRLC straw poll by the Ronulans prompts this peremptory dismissal of the morally and philosophically bankrupt Libertarian movement, to wit:

Since one’s life energy is available to you only through your extended sustenance by society during decades of growth and rearing, there is an obligation on the part of every individual to pay into the equity account of society in such measure as their abilities enable.

The fact that the best way for a society to be organized to allow individuals to fulfill their obligations is one based on liberty is mistaken by L’s to grant them license to self indulge with no accountability.

When Ron Paul won the straw poll at CPAC last week, a flood of memories from my early days of political involvement came rushing in.  Back then, I was a teenage activist in the Nebraska Young Republicans for Goldwater, having grown up in staunchly conservative Omaha, with politically active parents (supposedly, my father had me, at the age of 6, waving a Taft for President placard in the lead-up to the 1952 nomination of Dwight Eisenhower), so I had followed politics and public affairs from a young age.

The echoes of those times almost half a century ago are haunting in their similarity to many elements of the current scene.  It seemed that many of my intellectual wannabe friends were waving copies of Atlas Shrugged like some bloated Little Red Book, and there were John Birch Society sorts rambling on about getting out of the U.N., restoring the gold standard, nefarious conspiracies embedded in the Federal government, etc.  And the biggest fight of all in the Republican Party was between the Rockefeller wing (aka Country Club Republicans) and the Western state Goldwater Conservative wing.  Then there was this former Democrat/Actor’s Union representative talking about how he hadn’t left the Democrat Party, it had left him and about a “Time for Choosing.”  Finally, there was a protégé of FDR’s who pushed through the largest expansion of the Federal government since the New Deal.  All of this brought to a head a populist backlash which risen-from-the-dead Richard Nixon coalesced into the Silent Majority and the Presidency.

This brings me to the title of this column and a hope for the Tea Party Movement to have a better outcome than did the Silent Majority (although the first Carter term did open the door for a pretty good run in the 80s).  The raw power and enthusiasm of the Tea Party Movement inevitably has attracted a variety of political opportunists, each hoping to garner the support of the Movement participants for their cause, not the least of which is the Libertarian Party.  As I opined in a column entitled Libertarianism’s Libertine Underbelly, the self-absorbed emphasis by the Libertarians on absolute individual liberty is not in the Conservative mainstream of American culture.  I want to rely upon my firm belief in the common sense of the American people and hope that the Tea Party Movement will resist the lure of the Libertarians.

Finally, I would like to express a hope that the Tea Party Movement can be an opportunity for a return to basics for the Republican Party (hat tip to Michael Zak).  Instead of the Republican Party making a pitch for the Tea Party Movement to come to it, I would like to see the Republican Party come to the Tea Party Movement, shedding its current big government baggage and embracing the Constitution-loving ordered liberty of the conservative instincts of the American people.

As a life-long American Conservative, I have steadfastly subscibed to Russell Kirk’s second principle of Conservatism–Continuity, even though I have no children.  What I don’t understand is how people who do have children (and grandchildren, God willing) can expect me to devote more energy to the restoral of Ordered Liberty of the Founding than most seem willing to do themselves.  I see the various arguments and counterarguments concerning how to defeat the latest statist abomination on this site, all the while finding little evidence of a willingness to swallow the bitter pill of restoral (eg, reduce the Federal government to a scale and scope consistent with strict construction of the Constitution–about 90% reduction in the budget, elimination of crypto welfare such as Social Security, Medicare, etc.).

Tell me again what your model of human nature is that would expect someone to hold your interests in higher regard than you do yourself, let alone over the other person’s interests.

The current populist surge, evidenced most dramatically in the Tea Party movement, is building to a crest and is likely to sweep many incumbents from office in this election cycle.  While many are characterizing the political philosophy of the movement as strongly Conservative, there is as strong a whiff of Libertarian tendency in the movement.  While there are many overlaps in the particulars of Conservative and Libertarian policy positions, there is a fundamental incompatibility between the two societal philosophies that is unlikely to be reconciled.

While I am not prone to be as acerbically dismissive of Libertarianism as Russell Kirk (see Libertarins: the Chirping Sectaries—http://www.mmisi.org/ma/25_04/kirk.pdf), I think there is a philosophical weakness in the Libertarian creed that I would call the Libertine Underbelly, probably best illustrated by the consistent arguments for blanket drug legalization often touted by Libertarians.  A good analysis of one aspect of this issue can be found at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19205.  While this analysis shows the weakness of the decriminalization aspect of the Libertarian drug position, I think there is a stronger underlying weakness in the entire Libertarian premise that, essentially, all men are islands (apologies to John Donne).

I believe it is fair to portray as a core Conservative belief that the purpose of civil society is to provide the most benign environment for families and societal institutions to bring new generations of free individuals into such a society, nurturing them until they are self-sufficient and able to assume responsibility for constructively participating in that society, freely and independently.  A fundamental aspect of this process is the total dependence on society of the newly born person for the good will and resources of contributing members of that society.  This dependence lasts decades and involves many members of society and considerable amounts of their resources.  Thus, a thirty year old has an accumulated “debt” to society that I contend creates an obligation to spend the rest of their life returning, with interest.  The method of that repayment differs dramatically between Conservative and Radical philosophies, but Libertarianism would seem to object to the entire premise, stating rather “as long as one’s actions hurt no one else, individuals are free to do whatever they want, even if they hurt themselves.”   I contend that actions that hurt oneself in fact hurt others, analogous to having a wild party and  trashing a home given to you by your parents.  Doing such a pointlessly destructive act squanders the life energy and physical resources put into the asset by others, even though the immediate effect is to harm your personal quality of life.  Those resources squandered were applied to the asset by productive members of society with the implicit intent of their constructive use toward the preservation of civil society, not as fuel for self indulgence.

I can only hope that such citizen activism as the Tea Party and other civic participation will tend toward Self Government Conservative principles (“Rights are inseparably associated with duties.”), resisting the dual siren songs of Big Government Radicalism (“I’ll give you other people’s money.”) and No Government Libertarianism (“Every man is an island.”).

<!– /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:”Cambria Math”; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:1; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} p {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”,”serif”; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-size:10.0pt; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
A recent post to one or another of the blogs I monitor suggesting that we annex Haiti as we did Puerto Rico brings me to suggest a better approach (having lived in Puerto Rico as a boy, I can relate to the suggestion, but like mine better).

The British Raj in India, for all of its typical British colonial excesses, had the end result of leaving behind a governmental and industrial infrastructure capable of evolving into the India of today, which its current blossoming middle class would probably say is a good thing.

The roots of the British Raj in the British East India Company gave me the inspiration to suggest that we take a slightly different tack than did Britain and put a uniquely American stamp on an attempt to establish a sustainable Haitian nation.

Rather than dumping billions of welfare dollars into the rat hole, I suggest that we enlist the services of Steve Wynn to develop Haiti into the premier resort country of the Caribbean.  The U.S. Government can plow the same dollars into infrastructure as it would anyway, but private industry would be given an exclusive 50 year license to implement the construction and operation of that infrastructure, all for the prospect of the profits such an operation would yield.  The American West Indies Company would pay for the use of the physical plant that it specifies and builds, as well as fees for use of roads and ports.  At the same time, the Company would manage the construction and operation of private housing and commercial infrastructure, with a lease/purchase option offered to the citizens.  The training of the large complement of employees required for all aspects of this operation would be an expense of the Company (since they would be the immediate beneficiaries), and would include the teaching of English, both spoken and written, mathematics, and civics, with a strong emphasis on the American Constitution.  Additionally, all Haitian children would have access to these facilities, with the incentive to participate being the opportunity to qualify for employment by the Company or private business enterprises operating the commercial infrastructure, of which there would be a great need.

Physical security, law, and order would be subject to martial law, administered and enforced by the U.S. DoD, until such time as a generation of citizens has emerged from the training / education system, at which time a Constitutional Convention would be convened to establish self governance by the Haitian people.  The physical plant infrastructure would be granted to the new Haitian government by the U.S. and our role would cease.  The American West Indies Company would be dissolved and an open bidding process for the license to operate the resort business would be instituted at the end of the 50 year period.

There would be no U.N. role in this process and any charitable organizations wishing to contribute volunteer labor and materials would be welcome, given they submitted to management oversight by the Company.  No restraints on the practice or teaching of religion would be applied.

Anyone objecting to this intrusion upon the sovereignty of Haiti would have to point to a viable sovereign Haiti that exists for an intrusion to be applicable.  If the American taxpayer is going to be footing the bill for the billions that will be flowing into Haiti anyway, it only makes sense to establish a mechanism, based on proven results, to ensure it isn’t just the next wasted dumping of welfare upon a failed state.

I can’t see what makes anybody think that amending the Constitution to limit the terms of Representatives and Senators will influence those of the electorate that constitute the Parliament of Whores (hat tip to PJO).  If American Conservatives want to stanch the corruption that is practices in DC, the time would be better spent storming the ramparts of the Educrats in the public education system to take back the civics education of the next generation of the electorate.  Until there is a clear connection in the mind of the voters between their voting right and their civic responsibility to be informed with their vote, the frog will continue to boil