Wanted:
A Thoughtful Pause
by
David Dieteman
Americans
continue to react to the attacks on New York and Washington. And
the reactions, including the official reaction of the President
and the Congress, speak volumes about the American mind.
First,
one of the Big Three news networks ran a story this week on the
financial crisis facing state and local governments. The worry?
Ah, but what else does any government worry about: decreasing tax
revenues. "Consumers" (i.e., people) staying home to watch the news,
or to be with their families in the wake of the traumatic events
of September 11, are not spending money.
Big
shock. There may be a war on, with the potential for casualties
not seen since Vietnam. There may be more attacks yet to come on
American soil.
And
the tax man worries about keeping his pockets stuffed.
Here's
a suggestion: cut the government, at all levels, back to those "essential
services" that stay running during good old partisan budget fights.
Remember when Bill Clinton "shut down the government" during his
feud with the Republican Congress? The world did not end. We did
not need the closed agencies, and we do not need them now.
A
further suggestion: eliminate the "non-essential" government programs.
Permanently. If they're non-essential, they are not properly part
of government's job description.
Now,
then, is a good time to eliminate the following: the sugar subsidy,
the honey subsidy, rural electrification subsidies, farm subsidies,
the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, and the
many forms of corporate welfare (for example, helping corporations
advertise overseas; that's why advertising agencies exist). States
can get rid of their own agencies which copy the federal model.
For
that matter, it may be time (it is, in fact, long past time) to
implement Bob
Murphy's ten steps to a freer country.
Second,
the press is filled with discussions of the stock market. There
are those Americans who wonder why the stock market continues to
go down.
For
starters, the now-ended market boom was been sustained by an unsustainable
credit expansion, engineered by the fed. Investments that were not
really so hot (dot com sector, anyone?) were made to look hot by
the availability of easy money. As the economy tightened, the darling
little dot coms were dumped in favor of actually profitable companies.
In this regard, see two timeless classics by Murray Rothbard, The
Case Against the Fed, and America's
Great Depression.
As
these malinvestments were being corrected by the normal operation
of the market, the terrorists struck at New York and Washington.
It should come as no surprise that the stock market has since fallen
even further.
When
you buy a stock, you buy a share of a company, a slice of their
earnings and assets. When there are terror attacks, to put it mildly,
there is uncertainty. The United States has declared that it is
in a war against "global terrorism," and the shooting is likely
to start quite soon. Many companies will see their profits suffer.
We cannot pursue peaceful commerce and massive military operations
at the same time, despite the fact that President Bush, in his speech
to the Congress on September 20, asked Americans to do exactly that.
The
money spent by the government comes from taxes, which means it comes
from working men and women, and the companies that employ them.
More money taken in taxes means less money to invest for greater
productivity, less money to spend on research and development, and
less money on hand when business slows down. Marginal firms, like
Midway Airlines, will go out of business.
Forbes
magazine recently ran a quote from the inaugural address of Calvin
Coolidge, given in 1925. Coolidge put it like this:
I
favor the policy of economy, not because I wish to save money,
but because I wish to save people. The men and women of this
country who toil are the ones who bear the cost of the Government.
Every dollar that we carelessly waste means that their life
will be so much the more meager. Every dollar that we prudently
save means that their life will be so much the more abundant.
Economy is idealism in its most practical form.
We
cannot enjoy prosperity and grant ever-increasing powers to government,
whether local, state or national.
Even
where this does not risk prosperity (by seizing property through
taxation), it risks liberty. Despite the utter failure of government
to fulfill its most basic role the protection of its citizens
and their property the government now demands more powers.
Given
the track record of the FBI under Janet Reno, this is disturbing.
Has anyone been held accountable for the FBI files of Republicans
which "mysteriously" turned up in Hillary Clinton's office? (By
the way, didn't Hillary look happy to be listening to Dubya last
night? Was she tranquilized?) As Paul Craig Roberts wonders,
What
is the point of the FBI's "Carnivore" e-mail snooping program,
as the terrorists already have our eavesdrop-proof technology?
It will be American civil liberties, not terrorists, that suffer.
If this is the kind of thinking that governs our response, we
are going to lose the war on terrorism.
In
short, the tail is now wagging the dog.
Third,
there is nothing new under the sun. The current mess is hardly new
in the history of democracy. As Peter
Jones details in the Spectator (UK), the Athenians faced
much the same problem, and had exactly the same public policy debate:
In
427 B.C., Mytilene had revolted against Athens. The ruling Athenian
assembly (all Athenian male citizens over 18) decided to slaughter
the entire male population of the town and enslave its women
and children. Next day they changed their mind and the assembly
met again...
Diodotus
[argued that] "haste and anger are the two greatest obstacles
to wise counsel", and that the big issue now facing them is
not the present, but the future, especially "how Mytilene can
be most useful to us". He then points out that a universal,
as opposed to exactly targeted, death-penalty will get nowhere:
"Fear of death is no deterrent; no law or intimidation will
stop a people once seriously set on their course from pursuing
it, especially when they have the irrational view that their
power is greater than in fact it is; ...the right way to deal
with free people is not to inflict random punishments after
they have revolted, but so to deal with them that that point
is never reached."
Jones,
by the way, makes the connection clear enough even for the typical
American establishment type, who very likely has never heard of,
let alone read, Thucydides:
The
example of high-tech Israel versus no-tech Palestine should
warn America what it might be getting into if it blindly follows
the advice of the Cleons, and does not also consider why it
is so hated.
American
education is so bad that American elites think themselves the first
to have ever confronted such situations before. This is where the
Left-wing control of the universities has gotten us. Rather than
read the classics, or even American history, students are taught
that nothing is right and wrong, and that Western culture is evil,
racist, homophobic, sexist, and so on, ad nauseum. Westerners
do not even know what it means to be Westerners, and so they allow
the West to be destroyed from within and without. In short, they
repeat the mistakes of empires and democracies past, like a bunch
of ignoramuses. "Those who do forget history are doomed to repeat
it," and all that.
Worse,
there are those such as Washington Times editorial page editor
Helle Bering, whose piece "They
always blame America first" is an unthinking reaction
to the events of the day all-too-typical of the American elite.
Burying
her head in the sand, Bering writes as follows:
Or
listen to this poisonous report, which ran in the Guardian a respectable, if fairly liberal British newspaper under the
headline "They can't see why they are hated." It goes through
a litany of supposed U.S. offenses against the world, including
rewriting the world financial and trading system in the U.S.
interest, "murderous" embargoes against recalcitrant regimes
and the bombing of Iraq, Yugoslavia, Sudan and Afghanistan without
U.N. permission.
Memo
to Helle Bering: the Vatican has condemned the bombing and embargo
of Iraq, precisely because it is murderous. Are Americans, even
Roman Catholics, supposed to simply ignore the moral views of Pope
John Paul II, whose work for peace and reconciliation around the
globe is known to all? Even if you are not Catholic, the fact that
such a peaceful man as the Pope speaks out against American policies
ought to be cause for concern.
People
in Iraq, including children, die for lack of food and medicine,
while Saddam Hussein stays in power. Count on one thing: the last
man in Iraq to die for lack of food or medicine will be Hussein.
As far as the bombing of civilian targets in Yugoslavia, an aspirin
factory in the Sudan, and targets in Afghanistan, does Bering contend
that such acts of war are calculated to make the United States loved?
If
it can occur to British journalists that Americans are not universally
loved and admired, it ought to occur to Americans as well. Rather
than belittle such accounts, Americans ought to give serious reflection
to the fact that the policies of their government are making them
unpopular around the globe.
In
short, America is taking a wrong turn at nearly every opportunity.
As Paul
Craig Roberts writes in his praiseworthy piece in the Washington
Times, quoted above,
it
was the U.S. government that ignored recent warnings from both
Israeli and Russian intelligence and assumed there would be
no consequences at home of our continual bombing of Iraq and
support for Israel.
The
United States continues to miscalculate. Indeed, Americans might
be so politically correct and racially sensitive as to be unable
to deal with the problem at all. According to news reports,
the Federal Aviation Administration and airport authorities
have given assurances that racial profiling will play no role
in beefing up security against an obvious enemy.
Officials
at San Jose International Airport, for example, sincerely believe
they are giving the country assurances by announcing on Sept.
14 that "our security measures have been and will be the same
for any human being."
What
a waste of resources in a war against terrorism. Dr. James Smith,
a physician from Dothan, Ala., is going to be given the same
scrutiny as Mohamed Atta and Marwan Ashehri. Can you imagine
any greater nonsense than this?
By
the way, once again, I have a nomination for Bill Clinton's legacy:
he was one of the worst presidents we have ever had. That is a legacy.
As Roberts reminds us,
It
was the Clinton administration and U.S. corporations that sold
military communications equipment that cannot be monitored to
the terrorists, making the National Security Agency deaf to
terrorist plans.
To
say nothing of the fact that it was the Clinton administration who
failed to retaliate against Osama bin Laden for the Army Rangers
killed in Somalia, the embassy bombings, or the attack on the USS
Cole. Too busy entertaining Monica Lewinsky, or Chinese and Indonesians
with bags of money, perhaps. Like Al Gore said, the Clintons ran
"the most moral administration in history."
In
closing, the American response to terrorism on American soil has
been mixed at best, and downright worrying at worst. Note to those
with poor reading comprehension: this is not to criticize those
men and women who are struggling to find bodies and clean the wreckage
after the terror attacks. This is strictly a statement about public
policy. My cousin, a New York city cop, is working on the rescue
effort. The men and women who have been working round the clock,
who have donated blood, goods, and money, are heroes. They are showing
the world everything that is good about America.
That
being said, war fever has gripped the nation. What is needed now
is for Americans to think critically about their place in the world.
Rather than foolishly lapping up the words of the various talking
heads, we would do better to turn to Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates
and reflect on the meaning of justice. We would do better to sit
down and study the history of other empires, and other democratic
republics, rather than continue to believe that we are, where history
is concerned, akin to the first man on the moon.
If
we wish to continue to enjoy liberty and property, freedom and prosperity,
then we must actively work toward such goals. The Austrian
economist Ludwig von Mises, discussing another war brought on by
political machinations and entangling alliances (World War One),
put it this way back in 1919:
It
is altogether absurd to hold the armaments industry responsible
for the outbreak of the war. The armaments industry has arisen
and grown to a considerable size because governments and peoples
bent on war demanded weapons. It would be really preposterous
to suppose that the nations turned to imperialistic policies
as a favor to the ordnance manufacturers. The armaments industry,
like every other, arose in order to satisfy a demand. If the
nations had preferred other things to bullets and explosives,
then the factory-owners would have produced the former instead
of the materials of war.
What
is it that Americans prefer? Liberty and property? Or war without
end, and the total government control of social life and the redistribution
of income?
Conservatives
and libertarians have labored for many years to return the American
nation to its Jeffersonian roots. They have struggled to restore
freedom, and fought the growth of the Nanny State. War is the health
of the state, and conservatives and libertarians would do well to
think more critically about the long-term changes being wrought
in the heat of the moment, lest we move from the Nanny State to
something worse.
Grief
and anger, unguided by reason, will lead only to ruin.
September
22,
2001
Mr.
Dieteman [send him mail]
is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy
at The Catholic University of America.
©
2001 David Dieteman
David
Dieteman Archives
|