People of the Subordinate Self

You and I, we are the People of the Responsible Self.  We think that we are responsible for who we are, what we do, and what we accomplish in life.

But this kind of human is fairly new on the world stage.  According to chaps like Robert Bellah, the Responsible Self appeared during the Axial Age when the great world religions were founded. Notoriously, this movement is exemplified by the Hebrew prophets, who told the Jews over and over again that each one of them stood responsible for their lives before God.

I've been having an email conversation over the past week with a person who doesn't believe that.  I've been toying with ways of describing such people, to contrast with the notion of the People of the Responsible Self.  I've tried People of the Victim Self, People of the Marginalized Self.  But I don't really want to make the name for "other" guy into too much of an insult.

So for today, I am coming up with "People of the Subordinate Self."  Such a person does not think of adversity as his own fault, or even his bad luck.  He thinks of it as society's fault.  It's because of exploitation or inequality.  Or robber barons, or Koch Brothers.

Do we as a nation want to take care or our elderly and disadvantaged and sick and poor or start more wars and continue to allow our nation to deteriorate in education, in infrastructure, in healthcare and in income disparity de[c]imating the middle class even more. 

Of course, my correspondent is not proposing that he should do anything about that.  He thinks that the nation should do something about it.  And the main problem is that the rich don't pay enough.

As I see it, America should be having a revolution to equalize the income disparity and the tax code so the top 1% does pay its fair share!  You ask how much is enough and I told you that the Eisenhower tax rate was 91%, and that is about right.

So I think that the right word for my liberal friend is People of the Subordinate Self.  You have seen people like him where you work.  "Why don't 'they' fix the pot holes around here?" Why doesn't management fix things?  Why don't the rich pay their fair share?  Why do they "continue to allow our nation to deteriorate in education, in infrastructure, in healthcare and in income disparity"?

In a parallel world, one Penelope Trunk is pushing the latest idea that you shouldn't go to college.  Here are the bulleted tips:

1. Skip college
2. Internships instead of school
3. Start a company, not a resume
4. Don't be linear

Most people react with enthusiasm, but some complain that not everyone can be a self-starting entrepreneur.  For, to make her idea work, you have to have a Churchillian obstinacy, and never, never, never, never give up.  Like her.

But that's the difference between the People of the Responsible Self and the People of the Subordinate Self.  It is between people that think that they are responsible for getting on the world, and people that think that the other "they" are responsible.

Mind you, I've always lived curiously in the middle of all this.  I'm not a hard-charging entrepreneur that works, works, works, until something works.  But I've never been someone to sit in a cubicle and whine about the management.  After all, management is human too, and muddling through like me.  

And I've always accepted the basic idea of "employment at will."  Because who would want to work for someone forced to keep you on the payroll by government force.

One thing the People of the Subordinate Self don't seem to get their minds around.  Suppose the political party or the political vision you have adopted fails.  As in: runs out of money for pensions, healthcare, education.  You got a backup plan?

But that is the whole point of the Subordinate Self.  You wait around for the boss to move.  And then you complain when he gets it wrong.

Watching Obama Fail

It's been a grueling 10 years, since the Dems went on the Bush offensive.  It has seemed as though nothing conservatives could do would stop the onslaught.



And the worst of it is that Democratic failures are all put on President Bush.  You can blame Bush all you want for Iraq, but everything else is bad Democratic ideas, from No Child Left Behind to cheap mortgages to stupid stimulus to cheap money and gargantuan deficits.



So conservatives can view the end of the Big Push with relief.  Now, maybe, as the Obamis fumble and bumble, the American people will be willing to listen to a conservative message.



The trouble is that it's not enough.  It is not enough for the American people to give up on liberals about once a generation and vote, sadder and wiser, for a Reagan or the Great White Hope of 2016.  We have seen what ended up after the rebirth of the Reagan Revolution.  It ended up with the locust years of Obama.  The American people voted twice for the most left-wing president since Roosevelt, twice.  And they are getting the same economy as the Roosevelt economy.  Twice.



We know what the problem is.  It's the culture.  No matter what conservatives put forward, it gets buried by the cultural hegemony of the ruling class, the educated class.



It's said that if you have to explain your position you have already lost.  Yes.  No doubt.  But it's important to realize that the Democrats have the media and the schools and Hollywood to do their explaining for them.  The only thing they need to add are the talking points.



Can conservatives ever hope even to an equality in the culture wars?  Probably not.  That is why people like me are reduced to predicting a moral revolution.  It is our only hope.



A moral revolution means that a critical mass of people in America make a moral turn in their lives and coalesce in a religious movement that starts to carry the rest of America with them.  It would not necessarily be a church-based movement, but something more like the civil-rights movement or the pro-life movement.



You can see right away the problem such a movement would have.  It would have to bulldoze through all the attacks from the liberal ruling class.  It would have to be Churchillian, and never, never, never, never give up.  In my view it would have to be a movement of young-to-middle-aged women.  They would have to be insisting on a woman's right to live a woman's life: a life based on love, devotion, chastity, and family.  Why?  Because anything else ends up brutalizing and objectifying and marginalizing women.  Or emptying woman's life of meaning.  I mean life as a career, sex as recreation, life without children.



As we see Obama fail, as he must, because of the poverty of his ideas and the emptiness of the liberal ruling class, we hope for better days.  But until women -- who usually do what they are told until it is too late -- rise up and demand a modern world that respects the life of women and things that have meaning for women, the years after Obama will only be a respite from the reduction of social life to an administrative life, and from association to domination, from society to state.



Until the revolution, then.

Just Say the Word

Foreign policy analyst Michael Ledeen has a good piece on our ruling class and its inability to face the fact of Islamic terrorism.  It just can't say that Islamic terror is a problem.  Take Iran, he writes.  We don't really need to deal with Iran militarily.  We just need to say the right words.

We can do a lot just by pronouncing the right words, like “we want a free Iran,” and “we support the Iranian people,” or “the Iranian regime is our enemy.” Those words would give hope to the regime’s opponents, and it would–as it would have in Boston–improve the quality of our own government’s investigators, analysts, and strategists.

The right words are important not just because truth-telling is important, but because it sends the right message to the bureaucratic functionaries.   Why?  Well look what happens when you discourage thinking about the "I" word.

The people who do counterterrorism shy away from seeing such terrorists, or potential terrorists, because if they point to such people, several bad things (from the investigators' and analysts' standpoint) happen.  First, the policy makers aren't going to do anything; second, the investigators and analysts aren't going to get promoted, or rewarded with bonuses; third, they may get sued or sent to the bureaucratic equivalent of Siberia.

Yeah.  Why stop there?  The problem is that the whole nation is being strangled by a kind of liberal cultural totalitarianism.

Young Suzy Lee Weiss writes a funny article in The Wall Street Journal about the hypocrisy of the college application process, and the Today Show has her on to sneer at her and marshal experts to say that she's spoilt. (And read the comments: most of them have drunk the liberal KoolAid.)

Instawife Dr. Helen Smith writes about the war on men at the university.  She points out that men have only themselves to blame:

The discrimination will continue because there is no push back. If 5-10 percent of men fought back, stood up and started realizing that men’s rights are human rights and that they are not victims for daring to believe that their voices in gender and reproductive equality are just as important as a woman’s is, then maybe things will start to change. Until then, the kangaroo courts and angry feminists will have their day.

Yeah.  Aren't men supposed to have the courage to face up to the bullies and tell truth to power?

As I write in my American Thinker piece this week, we are coming to the end of the current liberal Big Push.  Liberals are intellectually exhausted after the big offensive that got President Obama elected, Obamacare passed, and the president reelected.  And all the pretty stories that they wrote are starting to fray at the edges: Osama dead, guns bad, immigration vital, health care just a matter of the right system.

Not to mention the bigger stories: getting a look at the seedy side of abortion in the Gosnell case, what you might call the Age of the Liberal Coathanger.  Who knew?

There are lots of other liberal narratives that are coming apart at the seams.  Only the truth struggles to get out, because liberals don't want to talk about it.

Someone has written that the Marxists tell the best stories.  Well, maybe.  I've just been reading a book on Marxism, leavened by a look at sociologists Emile Durkheim and Max Weber.

And what is coming through to me is the Marxist insistence on turning everything into a mud-hole.  The division of labor is held out to be a monstrous culture of alienation, the separation of mankind from its true nature.  But Durkheim points out that a division of labor is the most natural thing in the world, for it issues from natural human sociability.  If humans are gathered together, it is natural that Bill will go off into one corner and concentrate on one part of the problem, while Suzy will work on another problem.  At the end of the day, people will gather together and discuss what has been accomplished.  That is supposed to be alienation?

The end of the recent liberal Big Push will provide conservatives with a new chance to bring the tawdry liberal lies into disrepute and, more important get our own glorious story out there in the public square.

Of course that is what I do every hour of every day.

The Injustice of the Administrative State

So sad.  The administrative barbed wire entanglement of the Senate's gun control bill, offered by Senators Manchin (D-WV) and Toomey R-PA), has gone down in flames.  It was a bill made up in administrative secret and bounced on the Senate in all its 800 page glory.  Next up is Sen. Schumer's Gang of Eight immigration bill, another administrative monster full of plans and guidelines and timetables.  How many pages does it have?

But don't forget the granddaddy of them all, the Affordable Care Act, with its veritable northern forest of administrative provisions stretching to the far horizon.  The 2800 page Act itself is merely a demonstration forest compared to the vast bureaucratic continent that will be planted to implement it.

Some of the wisest minds have recognized that the legalistic politics that we now practice is problematic.  It's wonderful to use science in our political deliberations, but what about the human factor?  Here we have our ruling class setting out rigid rules to solve all kinds of problems, from gun violence to immigration to health care.  But has anyone seriously thought about whether an administrative system is a suitable approach to these issues?

Karl Marx worried that the naked exploitation of the capitalist economy inevitably alienated mankind from its natural culture.  Max Weber saw the modern age as an age of rationalization, in capitalism and in government.  But haven't we created an "iron cage" with this rationalization?  The Frankfurt School chappies noted that man uses reason to dominate, both nature and other men.

And so we come to my mantra: government is force; politics is division; administration is domination.

You can see this in the way that our liberal friends exempt themselves from administrative oversight.  Michelle Malkin has a piece on how this works in the abortion industry.

The Pennsylvania Department of State was “repeatedly confronted with evidence about Gosnell” — including the clinic’s unclean, unsterile conditions, unlicensed workers, unsupervised sedation, underage abortion patients and over-prescribing of pain pills with high resale value on the street — “and repeatedly chose to do nothing.”

Or this:

And an inspector for the National Abortion Federation, the leading association of abortion providers that is supposed to uphold strict health and legal standards, determined that Gosnell’s chamber of horrors was “the worst abortion clinic she had ever inspected” — but did nothing. 

It's the same as regulation of the finance industry.  How could we get a financial crash like 2008 with all those regulatory agencies?

Or immigration.  How come that liberal cities are allowed to declare themselves "sanctuary cities?"  How come I can't declare myself a "tax sanctuary" and refuse to abide by the tax laws?

The answer is pretty simple.  Everyone is equal, but some people are more equal that others.  Some people are the favorites of the ruling class and they get a pass from the regulatory enforcers.  In the case of abortion providers, they get cover from the pro-choice activist community.  In the case of the finance industry, its distortions and vulnerabilities are baked right in by the government, which likes a loosey-goosie credit system for its own convenience.  In the case of illegal immigration, Democrats are the national political home of recent immigrants, legal or illegal.

The problem is that the administrative state always has and always will play favorites.  As soon as you have administrative boards and committees and a collapse of the market into bureaucratic ukase then you are going to get arbitrary decisions based upon political power.

That's not a bug, it's a feature.

The magic of capitalism is that it dissolves this injustice; it combines reason with sentiment.  It forces its practitioners to think about the other guy, about how its customers might be inconvenienced by its arbitrary decisions, and how it might pay in losses for a foolish decision.

That doesn't apply to bureaucratic administrators.  They only have to think of what might prevent them from collecting their pensions.

The good thing is that the administrative state is grinding to a halt.  It just can't adjudicate the complexities of the modern world.  That is why its bills must be drafted in secret and then sprung upon the legislature with a full court press of lobbying and bullying.

But we believe in a better America.  An America that has climbed past the administrative state to the sunny green uplands of freedom and responsibility.

After Boston: Taxonomy of Political Conflict

When a nation state has a problem with another state, a problem that can't be resolved by diplomacy, it cranks up the printing press and goes to war.  That we understand.  But what about lower-level disagreements?



For instance, what about guerrilla movements?  Here you have an armed group dedicated to the overthrow of an existing government.  But a non-state actor like a guerrilla group cannot go head to head against a government in a full-scale war, so it must fight an "asymmetric" war, making life difficult for the government with raids on government facilities and enticing the people to withdraw support from a government that can't keep the peace.  Of course, very often a guerrilla group is financed by a state.  In fact, it is likely that very few guerrilla groups can survive without some sort of support from a state that wants to stir up trouble.



Then there are simple terror groups, that don't have the finance or the popular support to hide out in the country and maintain a permanent force under arms.  These groups are still groups with political agendas, but without the means or the ambition to conduct a full-scale guerrilla campaign. They really got going in that late 19th century when the combination of explosives and modern publicity made it possible to kill one person and frighten a million.  But you gotta give them credit.  You can really lower the prestige of a government with some well-placed bombs.  Maybe you can get the government to spend trillions of money for little return, like the US in the years after 9-11.



Then there's the lone wolf copycatting the terror conspiracies.  Perhaps Major Nidal Malik Hassan, the Fort Hood bomber, comes into that category.  A man is inspired to imitate others, and does so.



But let's not forget the left-wing activist group.  It is the cadre group representing itself as a spontaneous uprising of the people.  It is a political tradition of "peaceful protest" designed to project the impression in the media that injustice is abroad in the land and that helpless victims need relief.  The left-wing activist group is seldom popular, but achieves notoriety and momentum for its agenda through media facilitation.



Then we have the popular movement like the Tea Party that represents a genuine stirring in the people, and that moves fairly quickly to influence electoral politics.



Lastly we have the "mentally ill" single shooter, who doesn't have a political strategy, but just wants the notoriety of a bloody deed.



Everyone from the president on down is stigmatizing the perpetrators of the Boston Marathon bombing as cowardly and cynical.  No doubt they are right.



But all opponents of a political regime face the same problem.  They want to replace the government.  Government, let us not forget, is force, and politics is division.  So any political actor that wants to replace the current regime of force must follow a strategy of division that ends up with his group taking over the levers of force and coercion.  Until the day of the final victory, he must divide the people from the government.



Clearly, this strategy of division must usually include creating the notion that the government has lost control and cannot keep the peace.  At the state level, this allows the opponents of the regime to rail about the waste of war.  At the guerrilla level they rail about the inability of the government to control its own territory.  At the terror bomb level, they demonstrate the inability of the government to protect people on the street from cowardly murderers.  At the left-wing protest level, people rail about the continuing stain of injustice.



At each level of insurrection, the actors are using the weapons that they believe are most effective for them, given the political and financial assets at hand, to make their point and delegitimize the government.



Force is force, and division is division.  Sometimes bloody deeds succeed; sometimes they don't.



But if you ask me, I'd say that far too many people think that they can improve life for themselves and the world through politics.   For the vast majority of people, the best way to improve life for themselves is to follow the advice of Rupert Murdoch and "produce something that other people are willing to pay for."



Maybe, if you do that, you can be a part of the movement that has got people in the United States from $3 per day in 1800 to a life of $120 per day right now.



That would be making a difference.

Murdoch Makes Moral Case for Capitalism

Media mogul Rupert Murdoch is evidently a supporter of the Australian free-market think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs.  So they called on him to give a speech at their 70th Anniversary dinner recently.

In his speech, Rupert Murdoch took the opportunity of insisting that conservatives forget about the efficiency argument for capitalism and concentrate instead on the moral case.  We will never win the argument on efficiency, he argued, because morality trumps efficiency every time.  We must insist on the (4:10 mark) "justice and fairness, yes, the morality of free markets."  At the 7:70 mark:

Crony capitalism is not capitalsm, it's cronyism.  So long as we allow the debate to be framed by people who think the market is efficient because it is based on a human failing  we are going to lose every argument.

So what moral argument did he make?  Simple.  He made the invisible hand argument, a staple of free-market apologetics since 1776 and Adam Smith.  But he made it very well, so here it is, at about the 8:00 minute mark.

The only way to uphold market freedom is to show the people that the market doesn't succeed because of greed.  In fact, it's just the opposite.  The market succeeds because it gives people incentives to put their own wants and needs aside to address the wants and needs of others.  To succeed you have to produce something that other people are willing to pay for.

And let's not forget the problem of the people that confuse being pro-free-market with pro-business (15:55 mark):

Many of the same people who appreciate that too much welfare can be bad for a single mother somehow believe that spending tax dollars on industrial hubs is an excellent investment.

Yes.  Rupert Murdoch, the prince of darkness, telling it like it is.

Liberal Fingerprints All Over It

Our liberal friends think of themselves as caring, but rather overwhelmed idealists: fighting hard to make a better world against the WASPs at the country club and the bigots at the megachurch, but overwhelmed by their rather charming academic disorganization.

In reality, we live in the house that liberals built, from the schools to the culture to the safety net.  And it ain't in too good a shape.  There are signs of cracking, and the porch is leaning dangerously.  But don't look for liberals to agree to repairs.  They have other plans for the maintenance money.

Meanwhile the bad news keeps coming.

There's the Gosnell abortion case.  A black businessman in Philadelphia ran an abortion mill for decades, apparently marketing to poor black women, and now he's in the dock for botched late-term abortions and a host of regulatory infractions.  But where were the diligent regulators of whom we've heard tell?  Well, it seems that the regulators were leery about regulating abortion businesses.  You can see why.  They knew that they could get into trouble with liberal activist groups, and that is something that a bureaucrat understands in her bones is the one thing to be avoided in her smooth progress towards that defined-benefit pension.  Jennifer Rubin has a lot to say about this.

For a conservative, the Gosnell case is breathtaking.  Here we have liberals telling us that nobody can be trusted, that regulators are needed to keep and eye on everyone. Health care?  We gotta have universal health care so the government can make sure that everyone is covered.  But guess who doesn't get regulated?  Liberals' pet abortionists.

Then there is the utter mess in the economy and the culture.  It's lucky that liberals are the ones that have cratered marriage in the lower orders, have blitzed a generation of men by allowing them to moulder away on long-term unemployment.  Imagine if Republicans were in charge right now.  Why back in the 2000s then House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi started blaming Bush for the "jobless recovery" ere the Nation Bureau of Economic Research had pronounced on the end of the recession.

But let us set the stage with a chart of workforce participation of mature Americans in the last century from Blackrock. (link no longer works)

Here's the article link.  It shows how men 55-64 have reduced their participation in the workforce from the 90 percentile to 70 percent over the last century, while women in the 55-64 group have increased their participation enormously.  Meanwhile men over 65 have reduced their workforce participation from 75 percent down to 20 percent while women over 65 have actually increased their participation.

So the great Social Security revolution has principally helped older men (while you could say that Medicare has really helped women).

But then there is the family.  Robert Samuelson presents an even-handed analysis using a Third Way analysis from some liberals and the libertarian case from Charles Murray and Coming Apart.

Samuelson presents Murray's argument thus:

Having a child out of wedlock became more common and acceptable; the sexual revolution enabled men to get sex without marriage. The waning power of religion undermined the importance of family. Feminism and expanding welfare programs made it easier for women to survive -- through jobs or aid -- on their own. Liberalized divorce led to more breakups.

And here is the liberal line:

In a paper for Third Way, a liberal think tank, economists David Autor and Melanie Wasserman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology attribute the decline of marriage -- which, like Murray, they say is concentrated among the poorly educated -- to the eroding economic heft of men compared with women. Women are more independent economically; men are weaker. Marriage has lost much of its pecuniary pull.

Is it the culture or the economy?  And did we just fall into the creek, or were we pushed?

The missing link, in my view, is that the whole question about humans as social animals is: what to do with the men.  In the last century we have reversed the question and asked what to do about the women?  But that is nonsense.  Women are never a problem; they always do what they are told.  Men, on the other hand, are like dogs; they get into mischief unless they are given a job to do.

In the hunter-gatherer culture men worked pretty much as full time border warriors, rather like chimpanzees.  So when the agricultural age opened, with the enlargement of the zone of peace, what was there for the men to do?  Well, it turned out that women were particularly ill-suited for plowing: they tended to suffer miscarriages.  So there was the solution.  Men could do all the heavy work around the farm.

Then came the modern era of the city and the industrial revolution.  Now what to do, especially after mechanization started to reduce the amount of heavy labor?  The answer was the Protestant answer, the idea of work as a calling, work made into a religious duty.  Now men could be sent off, not to the border wars or the army or the plow, but to the factory or the office where they could compete with each other for the glittering prizes: money, power, and the love of beautiful women.  Well, at least it kept them out of mischief.

But it worked so well that activist liberal women wanted in on the action.  The result, a century later is that women have invaded the "workplace" and transformed it from a place where men compensated for the lack of wars to fight to a place where women enforce the values of the community of women, discouraging bluff competition and requiring sensitivity.

We have turned the world upside down.  We have created a welfare state that discourages poor men from working and poor women from getting married.  We have destroyed the culture that helped men to sublimate their battlefield aggression into marketplace competition.  At least for the lower orders, closely patronized and supervised by the liberal administrators of the welfare state.

The rich and educated of today, of course, work and marry like mad.  Just look at this story about the two Thatcher grandchildren.  Surrounded by wealth and privilege they are devout Christians and obsessive hard workers.  Why is that, you ask?  Because the rich these days cannot just repose on their estates or their "funds."  They must work and excel; otherwise they will fall back into the the ordinary suburban middle class, and who wants that?

Drip by drip, creak by creak, failure by failure, the liberal cultural and political edifice is starting to fall apart.  Conservatives better be ready to offer an alternative when the revolutionary moment arrives.