Obama and the Liberal Bubble

We've had the real-estate bubble and now eager trend-spotters are tracking the higher-education bubble.  Nothing remarkable about either one, of course.  In the real-estate bubble we had government cheap credit chasing real-estate prices chasing more government-sponsored cheap credit.  In the higher-ed bubble we had something completely different.  We had government grants and student loans chasing higher tuition rates chasing higher grants and loans.

Walter Russell Mead has a piece today about the decline of liberalism, epitomized by the disaster of Illinois state finances.

Three states form the base of Democratic political power in the United States: California, New York and Illinois. All three states are locked in an accelerating economic, demographic and social decline; all three hope that they can stave off looming disaster at home by exporting the policies that have ruined them to the rest of the country.

He writes about the "misery and ruin that well-intentioned liberals combined with aggressive public sector labor unions inflict on the poor they ostensibly want to serve."

I think it is time to start talking about the end of the liberal bubble.  And, in a proof that God has a sense of humor, He sends us Barack Obama as the poster boy of everything that is inflated and bubbl-icious about liberalism.

The liberal bubble was borne aloft on three liberal conceits.  The first was the Enlightenment conceit that we can learn everything we need about the world from science and reason.  Thus you could create rational, scientific government programs to solve the problems of the world with a centralized administrative government bureaucracy supported by credentialed academic experts.

The second conceit was the idea that liberals were the heavy lifters in the civil rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s.  There's no doubt that liberals did work hard to push civil rights, particularly given the fact that the opponents of civil rights were in their own party.  But I would argue that the self-congratulations have been rather overdone.  For instance, why was it necessary to brand Barry Goldwater as a racist?  Here was a man that desegregated the Arizona Air National Guard before it was popular.  Why did he vote against the Civil Rights Act 1964?  Because he was a libertarian and thought the act gave the government too much power.

The third conceit was the liberal crusade against the Vietnam War and against the Cold War in general. Liberals conflated their opposition to the war with a distaste for the nation state and patriotism.  They lived above all that, working for Peace.

Liberal faith in their conceits led them to think that they were more than a ruling class with the normal vices of a ruling class, but something special. If they believed in God they would be anchoring their faith in their own superiority in divine guidance.  As it was they just believed that they were the culmination of human progress and enlightenment.  And they still do.

The ancient Greeks had a word for this sort of thing.  They called it: hubris.

Liberal hubris after the civil rights revolution led them into the racism of quotas, affirmative action, and diversity, and so they led African Americans into a hell-hole of black racism.  The fact is that we all like our own kind best, and we need the constant encouragement of moral leaders to remind us to be fair and honorable to the "other."  Liberals bang on endlessly about this.  Pity they didn't apply it to themselves and their clients.

Liberal hubris after the Great Society programs for health care and the war on poverty prevented them from being honest with themselves about the failures of centralized administrative government, and so, again and again, they reinforced failure and called their critics racists and mean-spirited.

Liberal hubris about Vietnam and the Cold War has led to the disaster of the Arab Spring and Benghazi.  That's because liberals believe in the Marxist idea of neo-colonialism, that the West oppresses and exploits the developing nations of the world.  The grain of truth in their analysis is that, of course, modern western capitalism has swept across the world like a divine wind, destroying all the old traditional agricultural cultures.  But there was never a cunning plan to reduce the rest of the world to peonage.

The French philosopher-statesman Luc Ferry writes in A Brief History of Thought that we need to get beyond the Enlightenment and its rational faith, beyond Nietzsche and his deconstruction of the idols, beyond the materialism that many profess for others but not for themselves.  We have to admit that, after we have thrown away all the gods and the modern idols there is still an irreducible core of something: e.g., the disgust of seeing someone lynched.  I would call it our irreducible human sociability.  It is something beyond material, something beyond advantage: call it self-consciousness.

I would call that something "modern conservatism."  But first we have to deal with the decline and collapse of liberalism, epitomized by President Obama, who Peggy Noonan describes as "a president who is at once over his head, out of his depth and wholly unaware of the fact."

America's big problem is that the same can be said of liberals in general.

President's Plan Still Doesn't Get It

Finally, with two weeks to go before the election, the president has come out with his "plan."  It is, of course, no plan but just more of the same.  Larry Kudlow:

But before getting into the details of this little plan, my basic conclusion is this: Mr. Obama wants to slash defense spending, raise all other spending, and hike taxes to finance the largest government size he can possibly get.

 National Review editors:

Obama’s second term is to be a more or less precise repeat of his first term. In fact, the sixth item on his seven-point list merely touts Obamacare, which, if memory serves, already has been passed. He also wants to add six-figure numbers to the headcounts of the public-sector unions that finance and staff his campaign. And build batteries.

But you can see why the president wants to do this.  For over a century politicians have won elections by promising "free stuff" to their supporters.  Nothing remarkable here.  That's what the Frankish kings promised their soldiers as they plundered Saxony 1,200 years ago, and that's what the politicians promised the working class 100 years ago.  That's what today's politicians promise their welfare state clients.  That's what Obamacare is all about.



The great achievement of religion, they say, is that it curbs the freeloaders, the people who want their "free stuff" but don't want to offer anything in return. It organizes the believers into a community where the freeloaders get named and shamed.  The beauty of capitalism is that it puts the freeloaders to work without the naming and shaming, because the only way you can earn your bread in the market economy is by serving others.



The great gift that President Obama has given to America is that he has made the "free stuff" argument so blatantly that the "economically conservative socially liberal" moderates have taken fright.  Let the rich pay a little more and the rest of us can all get our "free stuff."  Not on my dime, says the affluent suburbanite.



When the economy was roaring then you could win elections by scaring college-educated women in the affluent suburbs about social conservatives and abortion.  No longer.  Today college-educated women are scared about being able to afford college for their daughters.  No doubt that's why Mitt Romney has been playing a benevolent uncle in the presidential debates.



But don't worry, girls and boys.  Abortion will be back.  In A Brief History of Thought French secularist Luc Ferry tells us why, in his notion of immanent transcendence.  Mere material gain, in the market or from the government, is not enough.  We are not just materialist drones.



Imagine you are witnessing a lynching, Ferry writes.  You just "know" it is wrong, and you would want to save the victim.  Same thing with slavery.  Same thing, we conservatives would say, with babies.  It is not a question of "choice."  It is a question of "life."



But first we need to get the economy back on track.  According to Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

Our Bull-session President

We all know the guy that thinks he's so clever when he interjects this kind of remark in an all-night student bull-session:

You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.

Only it's a little disconcerting to realize that the guy grew up to become president.  Now, of course, liberals and conservatives are busily fact-checking each other on whether in fact the US Armed Forces do indeed have less in the way of horses and bayonets than in 1916.  We may indeed have more bayonets than in 1916.



Anyway, I seem to remember seeing photo circa 2002 of a bearded special-forces guy in Afghanistan riding on a horse.  I found the photo oddly reassuring.  What I want in our armed forces is adaptability and resourcefulness.  If a horse is what you need in Afghanistan, then go do it.



I also once knew a guy who'd started in the US Army before World War II as a horse groom and ended up as a flight instructor on B-52s.  Only in America!  He once told a story about the difficulty of mid-air refueling a jet-powered B-52 when the tanker was a piston-powered C-97.  The C-97 would fly flat out and the B-52 would be on the edge of a stall. One time his B-52 stalled and fell 2,000 before it recovered.  (Note that as the B-52 takes on fuel its stall speed will go up.)



Enough of the war stories.  The problem with the president's remark, apart from its rudeness and snarkiness, is its lack of content.  What Americans want to know, Mr. President, is what kind of navy you think we need, and how you propose to pay for it.



I'd say that a great global trading nation needs a good blue-water navy to keep the pirates in port and the tin-horn dictators in their palaces.  What do you think, Mr. President?

The Bonfire of the Entitlements

Never mind about last night's foreign policy debate, the one that wanted to be an economic policy debates.  Never mind about Mitt's Five Point Plan on the economy.  What I want to know is how we can avoid the inevitable bonfire of the entitlements.



Want to know what the gay marriage debate is about?  It's about those spousal Social Security benefits. Want to know what Obamacare is about?  It's about burying fee-for-service Medicare in an administrative quagmire.



In a way, President Obama has a point.  The expansion of Medicare to include drugs was done as a straight increase in benefits without any attempt to finance it with new taxes or any fig leaf of "trust funds."  It's an outrage.  How could President Bush do such a thing.



You can see trajectory of the welfare state's descent into pure power politics by retelling its story.  In the 1930s FDR carefully packaged Social Security as an "earned" benefit: you put your money into the "trust fund" and you take it out when you need it.  In the 1960s LBJ passed Medicare with only a partial attempt to fund it with proper actuarial probity.  So Medicare will eat up its "trust fund" before Social Security.  But in the Medicare Part D expansion, the Republican president and Congress merely passed a new spending entitlement (and also some Republican friendly health spending accounts).  No trust funds, no taxes.



So the ship of state is on course for the rocks.  Inflation, default, haircuts, and riots in the streets.



The problem with the entitlement state is that politics is purely a predatory activity.  You sign up for loot in exchange for your vote.  The administrative state is not a community, it is a patronage state with hungry clients clamoring for their next handout.



Back in the 19th century, before the working class learned from the educated middle class that it could get loot from the state, the ordinary people of the industrial states were busily creating civil-society communities, from churches to fraternal societies, that socialized risk in true community.  You belonged to a mutual-aid society on the understanding that you gave and you received.



The Progressives of 1900 could have built on this model and strengthened it.  But instead they nationalized the mutual-aid movement and converted the communities of self-help into client groups of the political system.  The transaction is no longer that you give to receive, but that you vote to receive.



The choice in 2012 is between a ratification of the universal administrative state -- its Obamacare to universalize healthcare as an administrative structure and its Frank-Dodd to throw the banking industry into the care of the state -- or a half-hearted attempt to rein in the health-care entitlement with a repeal of Obamacare and a reform of Medicare.



Nowhere on the horizon is any suggestion of reforming the entitlement state and returning pensions, healthcare, welfare, and education to civil society where it belongs.  How could there be?  Nobody in America, not one person, is going to agree to cuts in their entitlements until the day after the government runs out of money and the rioters have left the nation in ruins.

Foreign Policy Reality

Ever since Vietnam, Democrats have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into standing up for US interests in the world.  In their heart of hearts they really believe the neo-Marxist, anti-colonialist, rich-get-richer while the poor get poorer view of the world.



There is of course a vein of truth in the anti-colonialist world view.  The west, armed with its science, its politics, and its religion, has swept all before it during the last 500 years.  You either signed up or you got buried.  The problem for non-western societies was ably summed up by a Chinese Christain in David Aikman's book Jesus in Beijing. Let's look at his words in full.

One of the things we were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact the pre-eminence of the West all over the world... We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next we focused on your economic system. But in the past twenty years we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West has been so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don't have any doubt about this.

Let us look at Barack Obama's "reset" foreign policy and Cairo speech and "apology tour" in the light of this testament.  Because right now the Christian western idea is facing a challenge from Muslims in the Middle East.



It misses the point to talk about Muslim terrorists as crazy "extremists."  The Islamists understand, and rightly, that they are facing a do-or-die moment.  Either they push back against the power of western Christian capitalist democracy or they will be swallowed up into the western orbit.  This has happened time and time again over the last 500 years.  Some countries, like India, have pushed back and made a practical accommodation with the western way.  Some countries, like Russia and China, have gone through hell.  Many nations have been obliterated: think native Americans.



Some nations have made a heroic stand against the west: Plains Indians and their Ghost Shirt movement, the Chinese and their Boxer Rebellion.  And of course there is the course of the Indian national movement that began with the Great Rebellion of 1857 and ended with independence 90 years later.



Sometimes the barbarians at the edge of empire swarm into the empire and take it over.  That happened in Europe during the first millennium with the Sack of Rome and with the Mongol invasions of the 13th century.  China has repeatedly been invaded from the north.



But willy-nilly, the job of a US president is to push back against threats to US power and the Pax Americana.  President Obama pretends that he has done that: Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive.  Unfortunately the Benghazi killings remind us that Al Qaeda is definitely alive.  What is needed is not just stunts like the bin Laden operation and the drone operations but a cultural offensive, to show and to prove, in bin Laden's apt catchphrase, that the US is the strong horse and Islam is the weak horse.



Terrorism is, of course, an admission of weakness; it is military and cultural force hiding in the weeds and jumping out occasionally to create a spectacular diversion.  But it needs to be opposed calmly and firmly.



Meanwhile, the Muslim exodus from the Middle East to western Europe and to the US is going to transform Islam, just as the industrial age has transformed the native peoples of Europe and the US.  Anyone can explode bombs, but governments and businesses are driven by the need to perform, and the ability to deliver for their subject peoples.



When I voted for President Obama in 2008 it was primarily to force the Democratic establishment to face the reality of the post 9/11 world.  The result has been most satisfactory.  The illusions of the liberal faithful have been well and truly demolished, as Guantanamo lives and Bush's Patriot Act continues.  And Obama's foreign policy has been utter confusion as its anti-colonialist dream hits realpolitik reality.



It's up to Mitt Romney tonight to signal a return to reality, and begin the long, slow repair to the US strategic stance in the world.

Why We Need Intuitions AND Concepts

OK, says Kant in the first Critique.  You could say that appearances that we get from our senses chunked together with intuitions are all there is.  Just as Hume suggests with his "associationism."  That's the point of his setup before the Transcendental Deduction:

Appearances might very well be so constituted that the understanding should not find them to be in accordance with the conditions of its unity.  And everything might lie in such confusion that, e.g., in the succession of appearances nothing would offer itself that would furnish a rule of synthesis and thus answer to the concept of cause and effect, so that this concept therefore would be entirely empty, nugatory, and without significance.  Appearances would nonetheless offer objects to our intuition, for intuition by no means requires the functions of thinking. (B123/A90)

Sorry to punch all that out, but it's important.  Kant here is making Hume's argument.  Hey, maybe our mind just gathers up appearances in a bundle and reads the patterns therein.  So maybe we just note the patterns and say, wow, there's a pattern here!  First the sun rose yesterday, and then it rose today!  Maybe there's a pattern here.  No need for analysis; no need for thinking; no need for concepts.

But Kant cannot accept this.  When we "cognize" an object, he claims, we do more than make a reactive burp in response to sense impressions.  And  so he lurches into the Transcendental Deduction to prove that we synthesize our bundle of intuitions using the forms of intuition in space and time and concepts derived from the categories, and then we unify the synthesis into a judgment about an object in an act of apperception, of a self-conscious validity claim.

Kant calls this objective validity, which is a bit of a push, since he's talking about a "valid" cognizing of a unity of synthesized intuitions with the help of the concepts of the understanding into a unified "object."  The notion of "objective validity" is obtained by calling things by the conveniently right names.

For us, the interesting thing about Kant's argument is its foreshadowing of the modern approach to reality.  Kant is claiming that we are not really passive consumers of appearances, but purposeful actors.  We take the stuff coming in over the transom and organize it in our minds in a strategic effort to understand and judge what is going on out there in the tough and challenging world.  We process our sense data and then construct in our minds a picture of what we have seen.  We "think" what we see and advance our claim of what we have seen and what we judge we have seen.

Forget Hume, Kant says.  I offer you a whole new world of active, purposeful "cognizing."

Kant's Best Shot: "Objective Reality"

In the Transcendental Deduction, Kant hauls out his big gun against Hume's "associationism:" he calls it "objective reality."  The idea is that if you run your lumber through Kant's three-stage lumber mill, inserting raw logs of sense impressions into the circular saw that slices the sense impressions through the forms of intuition, and then you assemble the manifold of resulting log intuitions into the synthesis of a stacked pallet, then you can judge the resulting stack of Grade A two-by-fours as a "necessary unit of the apperception in the synthesis of intuitions."

Why is this objective?  Because writes Kant, "[the] transcendental unity of apperception is that unity through which all of the manifold given in an intuition is united in the concept of the object.  It is called objective on that account[.]"(§18, B140)  Get it?  Since the thinker has united his manifold of sense impressions into a unified single object, he now has an objective reality.  The "subjective unity of  consciousness"  (Hume's association) is merely a "determination of inner sense" without the uniting into a single object.

So while we have merely a bundle of sense impressions we don't have a unified object, and therefore no objective reality.

What Kant seems to be trying to argue is that an objectively valid judgement is one that makes a claim, an assertoric judgment, as "this body is heavy."  This is a claim that can be agreed to or denied by others.  The statement that "bodies and heaviness seem to go together," i.e., a weaker claim than Kant's phrase "If I carry a body I feel a pressure of weight" comes closer to the Humean idea of a bundle of impressions.

But really, it seems to be much more sensible to accept Hume's skepticism that you can never really apply objective criteria to a truth claim about an association, and move to modern neo-pragmatism and say that look, the science is settled on this, at least a low velocities, so we know, from our concepts of the understanding, that bodies are heavy and bodies of gold are really heavy.  Until someone proves us wrong.