History is a bitch

Aldous Huxley (who was no conservative) has a quote about history that I like. It is something like “The charm of history and its enigmatic lesson consist in the fact that, from age to age, nothing changes and yet everything is completely different.”

People love to mix and match history’s ‘lessons’ and generalize to today’s issues. If only things were that easy.

To dismiss a few of these (at least for the people whose brains are not completely boiled and molded by bias) here is an interesting article on the history of the American left around eugenics, racism and how its underlying Utilitarianism continues to guide its policies towards some very dangerous “social compromises”…

Social engineering and the dark side of the American Left

Read Full Post »

Government is not reason

I’ve just finished watching HBO’s John Adams and it is really great. I think they focused a bit too much on some not so relevant details about John Adams’ personal life (especially in the last 2 episodes) and they could have explored more his fall out with Jefferson. But overall it is a great miniseries and well worth the time and money for anyone interested in the roots of this country.

One point I thought was particularly interesting and well portrayed was how the political scene changed as soon as the war for independence was over. Even though HBO focused on Adams’ anti-war stance, which currently is identified with the left, it is clear how Adams (along with Washington) represents the right side of the spectrum at that point while Jefferson was surely to the left. It reminded me of something I mentioned before: even though political positions change over time, it is amazing how the left and right differ in personality and demeanor.

—x—

I think it’s really silly how lefties are now gloating about the intervention of the American government in the economy. I mean, the joke is really on both sides: conservatives who said Bush was great clearly need to re-evaluate Bush or their ideology – and the same applies to lefties who declared Bush the worst President ever.

At least for me, what is happening now is not really the confirmation or destruction of any ideology. Yes, Bush’s intervention can be characterized as lefty but the causes for the crisis are still undefined. Lack of regulation seems dubious since highly regulated firms (like FNM and FRE) failed while highly unregulated hedge funds didn’t.

Also, it is worth remembering that some of the reasons the crisis is not as bad as it could be can be credited to right wing policies. Globalization is allowing the economy to keep growing through exports despite of internal turmoil. Floating currency exchange also plays a big part on that.

Anyone who knows any history knows that this is not the first time the right wing tries some policy proposed by lefties; and the opposite is true also (ask Bill Clinton). Some work, some don’t: Nixon imposed price controls with disastrous consequences and that was the end of that.

Besides, it’s not like Bush was a perfect conservative before this intervention (his Medicare Drug Benefit May Cost $1.2 Trillion – much more than what this bail out could ever cost)

—x—

I shouldn’t be surprised that the left is now saying that this is the crisis that will “destroy the conservative movement”. They love drama and exaggeration. I try to show how silly this is but really is beyond me to care too much.

The truth is that American conservatives, regardless of the current political positions being defended, are by definition anti-government. If the current bail out works, new ideas to prevent this situation to ever happen will come up. Maybe the net involvement of government will be less if regulation increases? Who knows… The point is that just because we might need more government now doesn’t mean we will settle for more government indefinitely.

Quoting from Adams’ friend Washington:
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

Read Full Post »

The most disastrous president in American history

“When the Germans had sought peace in late 1918, they appealed directly to Wilson, not to his allies. He pressed them to get rid of Kaiser Wilhelm II and the Hohenzollern dynasty. They did. He demanded they establish a liberal, democratic republic. They set up the Weimar Republic. They met all his conditions. And still he handed them over to the unmerciful French. Small wonder all German politicians would later describe the Treaty of Versailles as “the stab in the back”.

At home, Wilson alienated the Republicans utterly. He could not cooperate with the “bitter enders”, those senators who opposed everything he had done. He allowed his personal distaste for the powerful Republican Senator Henry Cabot Lodge to doom any effort at collaboration. Lodge was not a bitter ender. He proposed only mild reservations to the Treaty of Versailles, that required Wilson to compromise only on two points – that Congress’s consent would be required before committing U.S. troops to foreign wars and that the new League of Nations would respect the Monroe Doctrine, the cornerstone of American foreign policy for a century. This Wilson militantly refused to do.

He refused to compromise even when his Senate Democratic leader pleaded with him to do so and save the treaty. He refused again when the French and the British interceded, saying they would accept the Treaty of Versailles even with the reservations.

Wilson was the first Ph.D. in the white house. His doctorate was in political science. His specialty was the American constitutional system. Under that constitution, he had to know, the president is required to accept the “advice and consent” of the Senate in order to ratify any treaty.

Wilson’s inflexibility and disdain for other’s judgment gained him the hostility of his allies in Paris. Britain’s Lloyd George and France’s Clemenceau clashed with him. Italy’s Orlando was so upset he left the Paris peace conference. The Japanese, deeply offended by the rejection of their racial equality resolution, also withdrew from the conference table.

Had Wilson had Lincoln’s selfless qualities, or Washington’s ability to forgive, he might have been an architect of peace. As it was, no man was more responsible for losing the peace than Woodrow Wilson. That was his tragedy – and ours.”

This is from the great America: The Last Best Hope (Volume II).

Now, the people who blaime Bush for the 4 thousand soliders that have died in Iraq will have to ‘credit’ Wilson to a total of over 110 thousand. And some could say that the over 250 thousand who died in WW2 were also his doing.

I think he is the worst not because of the number of American deaths but because he represents the worst kind of President in any democracy: an educated pacifist. Pacifists are those who avoid war at any costs instead of actually assuring peace. Wilson was a man who took this hypocrisy to unprecedented heights (he was re-elected in 1916 with the slogan “He Kept Us Out of The War”), and worst of all, someone who did not even learn from his mistakes. He clearly acted late, and even after all the bloodshed that was caused at least in part by his flawed principles, could not avoid putting his ideology in front of actual peace. He was truly a disgrace.

Unfortunately, Obama reminds me of him a great deal.

Read Full Post »