Libera Voce

Human

We would be well advised to consider Benjamin Franklin’s observation that “If everyone is thinking alike, then no one is thinking.”

“To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom.” Bertrand Russell

What does it mean to be human? This was not my question, but that of my seven year old granddaughter at the zoo when we saw a family of Silverback gorillas. She was amazed and asked why they were behaving so much like humans? Some of the answers were actually noted on the displays about the gorillas, like the fact that they have 98% of the same DNA as humans, are herbivores, highly social but fearfully avoid humans, and apparently with good reason as they are near extinction. This last point confused my granddaughter because if they are so much like humans, but not human, then what does it mean to be human?

Now if you think there’s an easy answer to give a seven year old as to what it means to be human, be my guest, but think very carefully; according to Buddha, “What we think, we become.” My granddaughter was the thinker when she observed their behavior, and that is one of the primary characteristics of being human as she saw them as they were, i.e. Silverback gorillas acting like humans, but that’s as far as it goes. As the exhibit explained, gorillas form social units, each needing about 10 to 15 square miles for foraging in order to live. In the gorilla habitats in the mountains of Rwanda, Uganda and the Congo, the African people are expanding agriculture so they can feed an ever increasing population. Over the course of the last century, this expansion has depleted gorilla populations more than 80%. It is no surprise that the trend of human population growth is supplanting the habitats of these animals. If you ask the African people what needs to be done, they will tell you that they need food more than they need gorillas.

So what does this have to do with what it means to be human? The answer is everything as the natural evolution of humans is based on thinking about and acting on that which provides for the propagation and preservation of our species, and therein lies the balance of the DNA that Gorillas don’t have. While that does not necessarily mean the reduction and destruction of other species, it seems more often than not to be an unintended consequence, but is it inevitable? Does this really define what it means to be human? I do not think that is the case.

The exhibit went on to say that here have been studies that show humans can communicate on a primal level with gorillas and teach them behavior; gorillas can’t think to do that with us. I’m talking about just thinking like my granddaughter about what you observe. Granted she was making a reference to other observations about how humans acted, but that’s the same thing. One of the beautiful things that thoughtful people do is not just dream of things that could be but actually find a way to do them. Art and science are all about thinking and not being afraid that what you think may be different to what other people believe, or being afraid of making a mistake. This is the essence of being human; you may never reach perfection, but you will never be human if you don’t try. Ultimately, I think that humans will find a way to provide for the propagation and preservation of our species without the destruction of others.

Mark Twain once observed that “The two most important days in your life are the day you’re born and the day you find out why.” Well that first day is obviously critical if you are ever to get to the second important day when you realize what it means to be you; that day will either make you a happy human being or a fearful shadow of what it means to be human. Often the difference is between being a thoughtful person, or one burdened by beliefs forced on you. It’s often said that belief is when someone else does the thinking; if you accept that, then you have become someone who does not think for themselves, and perhaps does not think at all.

It should concern us all that the world has become driven by fear; social justice, climate change, and pandemics are issues addressed not with civil discourse and consideration of various ideas. These fears are more often than not the imaginings of those in our society who present themselves as experts in just about everything, often based on perceptions with no subsequent thought. Consequently, these beliefs become a mantra promoted in social media and government policies. It’s not the issues themselves that these beliefs address that should concern us, but the negativity and absolutism in how they are approached. There seems to be more fear incited than thoughtful and civil discourse on solutions. This is not what it means to be human but it is not that new a phenomenon; as Montaigne observed, “He who fears he shall suffer, already suffers what he fears.”

The worst consequence of the proliferation of fear through social media and government policies is the indoctrination rather than the education of our youth, providing a perpetuation of this fear mentality; this is not conducive to the propagation and preservation of our species as it reduces us to the level of the Silverback gorillas. Conformity to fear beliefs is the message and the medium is pervasive; these fear beliefs create a dystopia where thinking differently and free expression are disdained. The very nature of being human, of being a thinking person, seemingly no longer has any value. We would be well advised to consider Benjamin Franklin’s observation that “If everyone is thinking alike, then no one is thinking.”

To Each Their Own

As Justin Amash put it “Centralization multiplies the costs of human errors.”

To Each Their Own

“The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.” Tacitus

It is estimated that the Federal Government has created so many laws against crimes without victims that the average American can’t avoid at least three felonies or misdemeanors each day. There is a method to this madness and it is not to preserve and protect the liberties we cherish. It is in fact the means to subjugate the people and a cause of the polarization that infests us.

Back in April of last year I wrote a post titled “The Balkanization of America”. Since that time I have come to realize that the polarization I spoke of then, and feared would cause the fragmentation of this country, has reached a critical point. The issue now is not only how that process can be reversed, but what to do if it can’t with the inevitable choice between a violent or non-violent resolution.

What did the Founders intended regarding the issue of secession? As noted in the prior post referenced above, the constitution is silent on secession; this was not an oversight, but intentional. Madison et al made clear that the union was intended as a voluntary institution; as the principal author Madison records that there were proposals during the constitutional convention for a prohibition against secession that were rejected as contrary to the principles for which the Revolution was fought. The colonies had chosen to secede from the British common wealth, a treasonous crime against the king punishable by death; therefore they could not then compel a state to remain in the union against the wishes of its people. They also noted that the 1783 Treaty of Paris declared the thirteen colonies to be free, sovereign and independent states, each of whom signed the treaty.

While secession is often cited as the cause of the bloodiest war in American history, that is not so. The Civil War was ultimately about slavery. However, it is a fact that Lincoln was determined to preserve the union at all costs, and often stated that he would tolerate slavery in order to do so. Most of the North, even the abolitionist, did not support going to war over secession. So was there an alternative resolution to the death of 620,000 Americans? We may never know the answer to that as that option became moot. The Confederacy was formed February 4, 1861 among states that actually declared independence the prior year. During the time from the secessions until war started efforts were made to avoid it. However, if you declare being a sovereign state, and attack another sovereign state, then you have committed an act of war as the attack by the Confederacy on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861 made war inevitable.

There are those that argue that the omission of such a constitutional prohibition does not necessarily constitute an accommodation for secession; that fails logically given the simple fact that compulsion to remain in the union is not an enumerated power. This fact was not lost on those in Congress who proposed constitutional amendments to prohibit secession; apparently Congress was aware that there was nothing unconstitutional about secession, otherwise they would not have proposed such amendments to begin with.

How does this history relate to our current dilemma? The late Walter Williams wrote “Now is not the time to pine for the days of agreeable politics. In recent decades, the US has gone through radical political and cultural transformations that are making the country progressively ungovernable. Any kind of national election from here on out will be viewed as illegitimate by the losing side due to the perceived high stakes of these affairs. No longer do America’s partisan coalitions treat each other as respectable competitors, but rather as existential threats that must be vanquished at the ballot box. As America’s social fabric continues withering and polarization intensifies, it’s only a matter of time before this kind of tension turns violent.”

Williams’ statement was proved prescient given the riots in the spring and summer of 2020, the 2020 presidential election and the January 6^th riot at the Capital. While looting and arson are not part of a peaceful protest, neither is murder a part of making an arrest. Those events were not the underlying causes for polarization as is so often the case in history, just the matches that lite the fuse.

To reverse this dangerous process of polarization we need to decentralize power, the disease behind the symptom of polarization. No matter how those in power try to spin their various ideologies, when power is concentrated at one source, you create the means to alienate more people. As Justin Amash put it “Centralization multiplies the costs of human errors.” He went on to say, at the time he was forced to leave the Republican Party because he believed Trump committed impeachable offenses, that “No matter your circumstance, I’m asking you to join me in rejecting the partisan loyalties and rhetoric that divide and dehumanize us. The two-party system has evolved into an existential threat to American principles and institutions.”

The constitution addresses this very concern of centralized power by specifically stating that the Federal government is limited to those powers as enumerated, all other powers being delegated to the people, i.e. the states. Unfortunately, that is not the way things have gone; as the French delegate to the US, Alexis de Tocqueville observed in 1831, “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” That day came in 1913 when the 16^th Amendment was ratified; since then, Congress has had the means to do just that.

Politicians have always made outlandish promises to the electorate, but having the money to deliver on those promises became a powerful and dangerous tool; who can resist the promise of free healthcare, free education, free internet, free rent…essentially a welfare state. Those who understand that “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.” see through such obvious shams as ultimately someone pays, and in this case, it’s the American tax payer, the “public” in Alexis de Tocqueville’s observation.

This creates resentment among those who pay of those who promote such ideas, and those who benefit from them. Politicians realize this, and so need to provide cover for such larcenous behavior; the most effective ways are to promote their ideas culturally, and enforce them legislatively. As Thomas Sowell observed, “When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear.” However, when such methods are seen for what they are, that incites more resentment to the imposition of culture, laws and attitudes dictated from above; the “above” is the Federal Government, and the imposition comes from the politically elite.

The resulting social and political dynamic is polarization. There have been about a dozen movements for secession, ranging geographically from Vermont to Hawaii; the impetus for such movements is cultural, social, political and economic, and the advent of social media creates a chimeric growth with an even more alienating result. Add to this the efforts by politicians to censor those that object to the imposition of their cultural and social agenda and you have a threat to the very foundations of liberty so essential to a free society. Clearly in politics today hypocrisy has become a bona fide occupational qualification.

The reason to understand where the constitution stands on secession is not to promote the idea, but to consider it as the ultimate recourse to avoid violence. Following the 2016 presidential election, the people of California proposed secession and with the 2020 election, the people of Texas and some other states did the same. At some point such threats will become reality; we can then resort to violence to preserve a union no longer viable, or we take advantage of our own constitution to avoid that and provide for a non-violent resolution.

“Persistently Transitory” (?!?!)

This morning the financial news talk was centered on the inflation reports, which were at 5.4%, and rising quickly. There was a focus on the looming energy crises around the world, both on extremely high inflated costs, and shortages from all sources, with particular emphasis on natural gas in Europe. Other basic commodities like food, lumber, cooper and other necessities are all experiencing huge surges in prices with corresponding shortages in supply.

The phrase that had many of the interviewers and interviewees stumped was what the Fed and the administration spin the inflation story now as “persistently transitory”; of course such a phrase would confuse anyone paying attention as it is a contradictory construction of opposite meanings. Anything that is persistent is by nature not transitory, and anything transitory is by nature not persistent.

The debates that ensued were predictably about when the Fed will and/or should raise interest rates in order to curb what is obviously apparent as an inflationary trend that is no longer “transitory”. Even so, there were those that still cling to this transitory narrative based on causes that “… are not fundamentally economic in nature.” Now there’s an oxymoron if there ever was one as how can inflation not be an economic issue? True that the cause may be anything ranging from natural disasters, civil unrest, or distortions caused by policies, but all have economic consequences.

One economist who has consistently shown a clear headed understanding of the issues is Mohamed A. El-Erian, President of the Queens College School of Economics at Cambridge University. He correctly cites various government policies that have contributed to inflation, and cautions against the forever bromide of placing everything on the pandemic, i.e. crises come and go, but it is policies that have a persistent effect. He has been interviewed by various media and has repeatedly warned about the looming threat of inflation, the lack of central bank attention to it, and the concern that inflation will spike so egregiously as to force central banks like the Fed to react with a precipitous rise in rates so as to cause a recession.

Such would be the formula for stagflation, a phenomenon many in the US have not lived through given that more than 50% of the US population was born after 1980.For those who were born after that time, and even for those like me who are Boomers, but may not recall the “Volker Shock”, Paul Volker was the Fed chairman from 1979 to 1987. He was brought in by Jimmy Carter to control the double digit inflation the US was experiencing caused by Nixon ending the US Dollar’s gold standard and issuing wage and price controls, both disastrous policies leading to drastic inflation. At one point inflation rocketed to more than 11%, causing a loss of confidence in the USD such to the extent that the US was forced to issue UST notes denominated in Swiss Francs. In 1980, Volker raised the Fed rate to 20% which, while eventually but effectively bringing inflation under control through monetary contraction, also resulted in the Recession of 1981.

Thankfully, Regan reappointed Volker and followed his budgetary advice, as did Bush and Clinton subsequently, such to the extent that during Clinton’s administration the US had a balanced budget and a surplus for the first time since 1849. Since 2001 it’s been a tragic history of skyrocketing deficits and debt resulting from bad fiscal and monetary policies; it’s déjà vu Nixon Era.

Now we are faced again with the results of 20 years of fiscal irresponsibility and the monetizing of debt, such to the extent that we face the prospect of either the dollar’s default and demise, or another “Volker Shock”, this one perhaps even more painful. Yet in the face of that we have the Biden administration proposing the most irresponsible spending programs of such magnitude as to be laughable if it weren’t so tragically dumb, a literal case of spending from empty pockets.

Obviously, the US will be forced to yet again raise the debt ceiling in order to pay its current bills, but DC seems to be ignoring the thousand pound gorilla in the room. They need to face the reality that we can’t afford the dollar’s default and demise, and face the reality of depoliticizing the debate, cut spending, allow the Fed to raise rates and prepare for the inevitable Volker Shock II.

Do Americans have the courage of the 1980’s to accept the results of bad policies, and claw our way back at least to some degree of fiscal and monetary sanity? Consider the fact that if the US allowed interest rates to rise to normal market levels, the total of all revenues would not provide the funds to even service our current debt, a debt to GDP ratio that now exceeds 78%, placing the US 8^th in the highest debt of all nations; so what are we waiting for, getting to be first?

Some Fed experts cite the “sluggish” inflation over the last decade, one at a paltry 2% or less, as the basis for judging that this current spike is transitory, as if inflation was a good thing. They need to start understanding that inflation is like that old Lenin saying, “There are decades where nothing happens, and there are weeks where decades happen.”

What is also at stake is losing the reserve currency status of the USD, a metric establishing a currency’s stability, convertibility, credit worthiness, central bank independence and therefore its dependability in world trade transactions. Considering the fact that the US has inflated its currency 26% over the last 1 ½ years, resulting in a serious devaluation, the USD’s stability is an issue. When that happens, currency exchange becomes skewed impacting convertibility. Add to this the fact that UST auctions often result in the Fed having to buy much of the issue, which in turn inflates its own balance sheet, and that all impacts credit worthiness. On top of all this, the politicization of appointing the Fed chairman hardly speaks to an independent central bank. Little wonder that China, the world’s number two economy, and a nation with a debt to GDP ratio better than the US, is looking at a higher reserve status in the near future.

So when we hear such glib but dumb spinning like “persistently transitory”, and when you go to the grocer or the gas pump to see ever rising prices, remember that it’s not monetary and fiscal expansion that causes inflation, it’s that monetary and fiscal expansion is inflation. In the end, Americans need to understand that inflation is a thief and we need to call out our politicians for harboring and abetting the perpetrator.

Unfortunately

“True freedom requires the rule of law and justice, and a judicial system in which the rights of some are not secured by the denial of rights to others.” Jonathan Sacks

A few months ago I listened to a news program, I believe on BBC, about Jonathan Sacks who died last year. The program spoke about his influence on British political thought, and about his career as a former member of the House of Lords, a British Orthodox Rabbi, philosopher, theologian, and a well know public figure in the UK. At first it had no resonance with me as I knew little about him, but when they discussed his statement above that was particularly relevant to the current discursive discussion of race in the West, that resonated.

When compared to the mind numbing and perverse theories of White Supremacy, Critical Race Theory, and other collectivist and tribal theses, the Sacks’ quote makes the connection of concepts with systems and rights with such clarity, and yet so succinctly. I would have loved to have seen him as a guest speaker in American Universities and our Congress; likely he would have been shouted down and canceled in our current culture of misguided lock-step beliefs that are saturated with both obvious and subtle racism and classism. This is so regarding advocates of racial theories from all political groups, as if equality is a zero sum game, with rights that need to be rationed on the basis of race, and who is the perceived oppressor or oppressed.

I always found the biblical story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden being expelled because they ate the Forbidden Fruit from the Tree of Knowledge providing two metaphorical messages; one that knowledge is a sin, and two that this sin can be transmitted genealogically. While original sin is religious dogma, there are equivalent ones held by the perpetrators of White Supremacy and Critical Race Theory; in both cases belief in defective racial characteristics informs their theses and inspires their political activism.

While many people today do not subscribe to the belief in original sin as they see it as a moronic and vile concept, unfortunately many also fail to see the absurdity of ascribing to a human being an inherent inferiority based on their race. I am not making this criticism as a justification for some of the perverse concepts of equality; empirically no one can be equal to anyone else, and in fact the same person is not even equal to themselves at different times. While all should be equal under the law as Saks notes, it is absurd to think that any two human beings can be equal to each other; that would destroy the very concept of an individual, of actually being human.

Therefore it follows that each and every human being should be respected as an individual, each with their own characteristics and abilities, but all with the same rights under the rule of law and justice, and at no time can any human being be deprived of those rights in order to provide advantage to another. While this fundamental concept of liberty is imbedded in the founding principles of our nation, and in our very constitution, it has been violated through much of our history. It is this disease of racism that is the cause of the internal strife in American society, yet unfortunately we actually perpetuate it and often with ideas that we profess are meant to cure it.

As an example we have the case of the Parents Involved in Community Schools v Seattle School District No. 1. The District provided students’ parents the option to apply to any high school of their choice but also used racial quotas to maintain the diversity of the district. The Parents sued the District and the case went through the process of circuit courts, finding its way to SCOTUS in 2007. While there were the usual precedential arguments as this was not the first time for such a case, SCOTUS found that the District’s use of racial quotas violated the Equal Protect Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As Chief Justice Roberts stated, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” While SCOTUS’s ruling seems common sensible for such an obvious case of racism, it has not always ruled consistently on the issue. There were cases before and after this where SCOTUS ruled in confused and equivocating fashion regarding Affirmative Action, such as in the 2003 case of Grutter v. Bollinger, and other instances where racial quotas were employed; but the Parents v. District case did provide a precedential basis on which the law and justice are served.

For those who think that the cause for White Supremacy is fading, don’t be misled as the Klan is still very much alive, and in fact is reinvented with the rise of other such groups like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. For those that think that racism is limited to those groups, again don’t be misled as we have Antifa and DSA that embrace CRT. What is common to all these groups is the primitively collectivist thesis of race as a determinant of rights.

Inherent in all racism is this primitive tribalism corrosive to any civil society, whether that’s between whites and blacks, Han and Uyghur, Arab and Jew, the list goes on and unfortunately is plagued by seemingly intractable misconceptions of humanity manifested in both advocacy for and against racism. The concept of Aryan superiority is so obviously moronic that it does not require a high level of intelligence to reject its premise. However, while the same should be true of CRT, it’s apparent that it is making progress in infesting not only political activism in America, but in our educational institutions. There are actually k-12 school districts mandating its inclusion in curricula. Like all forms of racism it basically rejects the natural laws of humanity, particularly those of the Enlightenment and the rise of Classical Liberalism as institutions based on Western Civilization inherently structured to oppress those who are not white, and that this whiteness is an unavoidable characteristic of all white people. Yes, the theme of original sin lives on, and in this obvious form of racism now being taught to children.

Contrary to what most Americans think, CRT is not new. It has its roots in early post WWII America, and has informed many political activists since that time. The movement for Reparations is based on CRT concepts. The definition of reparation is making amends for a wrong one has done, most often by paying money or some form of help to those one has wronged. Since nearly none if any slave owners or slaves are alive today, the only logical basis for such reparations has to be racial. When I consider that this is proposed by many politicians today, I wonder how stupid they think Americans are when they tell us to end such racial divisions which they themselves have promoted for years.

Unfortunately what we have in America today is a widening gap on racial issues providing an opportunity for unethical politicians to manipulate to their advantage, and that is clearly the case in both main political parties, making tribalism that which informs much of the race discussion; as Thomas Sowell so eloquently put it, “Have we reached the ultimate stage of absurdity where some people are held responsible for things that happened before they were born, while other people are not held responsible for what they themselves are doing today?”

Unfortunately as absurd as Sowell may find our current condition, it is difficult to maintain an optimistic view regarding racism in America’s future. That said, and being an optimist by nature, I am heartened to read articles about parents groups taking action against the educational institutions that seek to include doctrinaire curricula such as CRT and racial quotas in our schools. The hope is that we love our children enough not to burden them with the psychological damage inherent in all racism.

What Does It Mean?

“Political tags, such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth, are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” Heinlein

When I was in college, there were two terms in Political Science which students had a hard time understanding correctly, i.e. populist and partisan. During the 2016 presidential election campaign, these same two terms became a mantra for the media and politicians. I often thought about those days back in college as there seemed to be the same confusion in 2016.

Populism is a political approach, not a doctrine; the etymology of the word is Latin, i.e. populus meaning people. A populist will recognize that the people are frustrated with their concerns being dismissed by the established elite. No particular political doctrine is needed, just expressed empathy for the people and disdain for those in power. It’s not a method attributable to any one political party but simply a means to an end, i.e. election or revolution.

One point of clarification is that the word populism can be used as an adjective to describe how those who follow a particular political philosophy can help propagate it and not as a political candidate. An example is Murray Rothbard’s promotion of Libertarian Populism, meaning a more proactive approach but still coupled with principled ideas, his point being that intellectual dissemination is not sufficient. On the other hand I do not necessarily agree with some of the ways he advises, like support of populists in the sense as noted here.

There have been many historical examples of populism in modern times: William Jennings Bryan and the Populist Party; Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressive Party; Juan Peron, an avid student of Mussolini; Fidel Castro, a revolutionary; the same is true of Vladimir Lenin and the Bolshevik Revolution. More currently, we have Narendra Modi in India, Donald Trump in the United States, Joko Widodo in Indonesia, Viktor Orban in Hungry, and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil; it’s a tendency to be aware and wary of.

Many historical scholars believe that populists tend to be more corrupt than those they challenge and are usually unwilling to relinquish power once they succeed; they find that populists who win power attempt to delegitimize whatever democratic institutions their country may have, while at the same time accuse any opposition of doing that very thing. Then there are some scholars who find such observations as a convenient means to maintain the status quo. What nearly all scholars have had to admit is that the regimes resulting from populism are often brief in duration.

In the 2016 Presidential election Trump’s rise to power within the Republican Party was due to the political vacuum of its leadership, such to an extent as to make the GOP the “Party of Trump”. He himself had no real allegiance to the GOP, and in fact had been a supporter of Bill and Hilary Clinton, well established Democratic Party elites. Being the consummate opportunist he had no compunction in switching and preying on the ever growing frustration of the electorate with the warfare and welfare state of prior administrations. He used popular jargon about the “Deep State”, “Draining the Swamp” and “Making America Great Again”, playing to the disillusion with the political system.

While the political doctrines, if any, of populist vary, there is one disturbing thread common to many, and that is fascism; while the term is often attributed by some scholars as “far right” politics, that is fallacious if not disingenuous. The term can aptly be applied to Lenin as well as Mussolini, and to Castro as well as Peron. They all have in common certain fascist traits like being authoritarian and ultranationalistic, wielding dictatorial power, brutal suppression of opposition and institutionalizing a socialistic regimentation of society and the economy in some form, from Mussolini’s “Corporatism” to Lenin’s “Communism”.

I do not subscribe to the spectral analysis of left or right political doctrine, even though it’s how most people view that. I find Robert A. Heinlein’s political analysis the most common sensible that “Political tags, such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth, are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” However, it’s a little generalized as not all those tags belong together as some, like populism, are means and not doctrine as previously noted.

Also, this does not necessarily mean that all populist were, are or will be like those mentioned above; it is simply a tendency that should inform us to be cautious in our support of such politicians. While I would neither support Trump nor Biden in 2016, I offer an observation as we approach Biden’s first year in office, i.e. the extent of his administration’s elitism and support for his party’s extremist element known as “Progressives”. On the one hand it mimics much of the negative characteristics described above, while at the same time it provides fuel for Trump’s revival as a 2024 Presidential candidate. So again, populism itself should not be viewed in the context of political doctrines as both “right and left-wing” examples exist; instead, look on it as an opportunist’s means to exploit a disillusioned and frustrated electorate.

Which brings us to the term “partisan”, a word derived from the Latin, pars, and meaning to be a part of; the common definition is someone who is a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person. Notice that to be a partisan is any one or all of those three. We often hear the lament that there’s just too much partisanship, and not enough bipartisanship in our government today, or how politics is so polarized along partisan lines as to be deadlocked. Historically, this is not isolated to current times, so we should all understand that and further to realize that our founders understood the inevitable tendency for any society to devolve into such conditions.

It was for these very reasons that the framers of the constitution constructed the protections for individual liberties with the balance of powers in order to avoid the destructive effects of majoritarianism. While we may criticize what we call deadlock in Congress, the dictatorial ability of the current composition of the Senate, with the legislative tie-breaker lying with the executive branch, is an anomaly the founders and framers thought unlikely, but nevertheless attempted a solution for. It will likely become a rallying cry for change for the opposition in the next midterm election, one the electorate is likely to support. This would be a positive example of how partisanship works.

Then there’s the case as an example of what happened to Representative Justin Amash; he was one of the very few Republicans who supported the impeachment of Donald Trump. It was his principled position that got him tossed from the GOP as a “traitor”; this is a negative example of how partisanship works, i.e. principled positions are all too often deemed contrary to partisanship.

What all this means then is that we should be wary of populists as often they are little more than demagogues and opportunists seeking power and not patriots acting in support of liberty. We should not be blindly critical of partisanship unless it seeks to undermine a principled approach to governance and one that is faithful to our constitution. Perhaps we should abandon the “lesser-of-two-evils” approach, and seek out, and vote for candidates we find capable of doing that, even if doing so is not the “popular” thing to do.

Let’s Not Forget

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” Ron Paul

It’s a little hard to nail down the exact date for when the US invaded Afghanistan in 2001 as it’s reported as “soon” after the 9/11 attacks by al Qaeda; both September and October are given as timelines. The official reason and goal for the invasion was to destroy al-Qaeda. That goal was partially achieved just a couple of months later in December 2001 during the Battle of Tora Bora where the US and its allies drove al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan and across the border into our supposed ally, Pakistan. Despite its protestations to the contrary, Pakistan gave refuge to Osama Bin Laden until his death on May 2, 2011.

So nearly a decade later, both al-Qaeda and its infamous leader were gone. Why it took a decade to do given that it only took a couple of months to drive them out of Afghanistan and into what we were told was our ally’s hands, where their leader resided for ten years before we killed him, remains a mystery. In the meantime, the US changed its goal in Afghanistan from the destruction of al-Qaeda to attacking the Taliban and setting up a puppet government under a mission entitled “Operation Enduring Freedom”; the US was now on a nation building mission, a doomed to fail one that took the US twenty years to realize. I often wondered why our antagonists like Russia and China said so little about what we were doing; perhaps they understood Napoleon’s strategic axiom that you should “Never interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake.”

While there’s no excuse for the abysmal mismanagement of the withdrawal by the Biden administration, the end results were as inevitable as what we experienced in Viet Nam fifty years ago. While I agree that the administration should be called to task for the embarrassing and dangerous manner in which the withdrawal was handled, the war was already lost when we elected to become involved in the politics of war lord tribalism that, other that al-Qaeda, posed no security threat to the US. As soon as al-Qaeda was pushed out, our focus should have been on Pakistan to show its allegiance to its allies and rid itself of the toxic element within its own borders.

To Biden’s credit he has consistently opposed the forever war in Afghanistan, as did Trump before him, but it was Biden who actually ended it, poorly managed but done. We are out finally of a black hole that drained and wasted our human and financial resources of a generation; but are we done with foreign interventions and nation building, and the wars that go with them? Well maybe not given the fact that the US runs 95% of the world’s foreign military bases in more than 80% of the nations on Earth. This is a very dangerous and wasteful policy that can only put this country in harm’s way again…and again…and until stopped, yes – forever.

Some time ago I read a book, more like a pamphlet written by a man named Garet Garrett, originally published back in 1952 entitled “The Rise of Empire”, in which he outlined progressive characteristics a nation will assume as it descends in to imperialism. It’s well worth the read as it’s a frightening, and considering where we are today, a prescient summary of how a nation can devolve to such a state in which they employ totalitarian methods without embracing a totalitarian ideology, not realizing that the methods are the ideology. Consider what one of this country’s greatest generals, Douglas McArthur, had to say about such foolishness: “Talk of imminent threat to our national security through the application of external force is pure nonsense. Indeed, it is a part of the general patterns of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear. While such an economy may produce a sense of seeming prosperity for the moment, it rests on an illusionary foundation of complete unreliability and renders among our political leaders almost a greater fear of peace than is their fear of war.” True wisdom from a man who well knew from experience what he was talking about.

If we forget these lessons from history, then as F.A. Hayek warned “We shall not grow wiser until we learn that much that we have done was very foolish.” Statism is a cancer, it eats away at the liberty, wealth, morality and good will of a nation’s people; it thrives on wars whereas a truly free nation thrives on production. To connect the dots with my prior post, consider the observation of retired Congressman Ron Paul that “It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking.”

Lost in the hysteria following 9/11 was a report to Congress on September 10, 2001 by then U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who disclosed under oath to various committees that his department was unable to account for roughly $2.3 trillion worth of transactions. How did we forget that?!?!? Amazing what fear will do to muddle the minds even of those tasked to protect the finances of this country. Despite continued Congressional and media follow-up, no answers other than Rumsfeld blaming Pentagon mismanagement came of this. Even by today’s standards, that is a staggering loss.

Prior to WWI this country was loathed to get into foreign conflicts, although we created our own with the Spanish American War. While the destruction of the Maine was later found to be a faulty boiler explosion, and not Spanish sabotage, it was a relatively quick conflict, but one that extended American hegemony deep into Asia and Latin America, ending years of careful avoidance of foreign adventurism. It also paved the way for Wilson’s more extensive exploits, again with fabricated causes, in a European war. Oh how statists love wars!

One recent positive development is pending legislation to limit Presidential war powers. It is embedded in our history and constitution that only Congress has war powers, and legally they may not even abdicate such powers as they had done in Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and who knows where else. It is not only our presidents who are accountable for these illegal horrors, but a national legislature lacking the moral fiber to act as the representatives of the people who elected them. They share the shame and we should call them to task to do their jobs or make way for those that will.

Spinning Out of Control

In anticipation of the upcoming annual Economic Policy Symposium in Jackson Hole that started this past Thursday, many financial news organizations interviewed various Federal Reserve Governors regarding the published program agenda, entitled “Macroeconomic Policy in an Uneven Economy”. While many of the questions were scripted to the Federal Reserve’s narratives, there were some that were well on point regarding Fed policy and actual economic conditions, which the Governors should have, and in some cases did anticipate. The answers were interesting in the jargon used to either avoid hard questions or spin like Orwellian Newspeak.

One question posed was what did the agenda title actually mean? I imagine that much of the public would not be able to tell the difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics. The phrase and definition of macroeconomics was first proposed by John Maynard Keynes in the 1930’s as a proposition that governments should decide on economic policy. Before then autocrats in monarchies and other authoritarian countries simply decreed whatever economic regulations they wished. Keynes attempted to raise such dictates to a science. We have another invented term as a corollary, i.e. microeconomics as the study of those decisions of individuals and businesses; seemingly regarded as the lesser stuff even though it’s what makes for an economy in the first place.

Now go to “…in an Uneven Economy” for more discursive thinking. The answers were many and varied, but one consistency that became apparent is that no one could provide a coherent answer, but also none of the answers were consistent among the Governors. This should be expected with an agenda so vague and ambiguous. All economies by nature are “uneven” as the very genesis of the discipline we call economics is about scarcity, i.e. if there was no scarcity in the world the study of economics would be meaningless. Further, no matter what policies any bureaucrat can conjure up they will never make any economy “even”, and empirically have made them worse.

Then we have the telling question for which we get very creative spinning. The question was “Is the Federal Reserve at all concerned about increasing inflationary trends far greater than either its target or its expectations, and the fact that it no longer appears to be transitory?” To the first part the answers were somewhat dismissive as if inflation did not exist or was unimportant; for the second part the answers by some governors were truly creative and included a common theme, i.e. we should not be thinking about the current inflationary trends as “transitory” but “episodical”. Wow, that one sent me to my Webster’s as I was not sure it was a real form of episode, but the Governors were grammatically right on, although regrettably disingenuous. The term itself regards a series of interconnected episodes, or in other words not something transitory, but something of a longer, and perhaps indeterminate duration. So there we have it, spinning a situation in such a way that we can actually see the spin.

Not to be swayed by the spinning, some more adventurous interviewers ventured into the QE area and the related topic known as tapering. The term “Quantitative Easing” first arose in the public lexicon in 2008 when the Fed started buying UST securities in order to increase the money supply. But what do you buy that with? No problem since the Fed simply orders more Federal Reserve Notes, i.e. US dollars, from the UST’s Bureau of Engraving and Printing; it’s monetary inflation on steroids. Those USDs are in turn distributed to the regional Fed banks, who are required to put up collateral for the new money circulated; they in turn distribute the new money to the various commercial banks and lending institutions. It’s kind of a trickle down process, but the first at the trough are the big investment banks where their large clients in corporate America come to feast. Easy money at Fed repressed rates, creating the booming valuations in stocks and real estate, unfortunately at the expense of those dependent on market determined interest rates.

The spin on this starts with the name itself, which would indicate that there is some unnatural restriction that has to be eased, when in fact the reality is that investments and lending, in many respects similar but not always the same, should actually decrease as risk increases. This is the free market’s way of cleansing itself of bad assets and actors in the economy and redirecting money to where it will provide return on investments that would attract further investments, and so on, leading to real growth and the prosperity and jobs that come with that.

When the Governors where asked about the plans for the Fed to “taper”, i.e. buy fewer UST securities and/or allow interest rates to return to market functions, and/or cool off the printing press, we get very fluid responses ranging from later this year, 3Q next year, or as late as middle of 2023. Asked if they think delaying tapering or continuing with their other “tools” would overheat the economy, or make our national debt even more of a dangerous burden, and we get varied responses, but again with a new consistent buzz word, i.e. the need to “balance” many considerations.

The first thing to understand is what the Federal Reserve Act mandates economically to begin with, and there are only two considerations, i.e. work to assure maximum employment and minimum inflation; admittedly these are inherently contradictory goals, but who are we to question the wisdom of Congress. The second thing to consider is the word “balance” as in a balance sheet. One of the Feds financial regulatory duties is to assure stability in the banking system, and one of the procedural tools it uses is a financial stress test focused on a bank’s balance sheet, i.e. a bad balance sheet translates as a bank in financial stress. By all measures in that regard the Fed’s balance sheet is stressed beyond belief, itself dependent on the life support of massive doses of paper money as if it grew on trees….well close, dollars are printed on cotton that grows on a shrub, but let’s not get picky, no pun intended.

In summary the Fed has spun out of control, even by the metrics of so called Modern Monetary Theory; theories are nice as an academic exercise, but empirical evidence shows that MMT is little more than failed economics. When interest rates approach zero while inflation increases, you are essentially already at net negative rates, so the Fed’s open market operations such as QE are not only no longer effective, but are doomed to failure. Consider the fact that since 2008 we have had QE1…2…3 …4…get the point?

Dating back to ancient Rome and its imperial regimes, the need for more and more money to finance its hegemony of the then known western world, so devalued its wealth time and again until it imploded; Rome fell because it failed economically, and politically from within, and not because of some barbarians at the gate. Beware America, history has a way of repeating itself.

Saigon Déjà Vu

While mass media wrestles with the blame about the debacle of Afghanistan, and whose fault it is, and whether Trump lied about his conditions for withdrawal, and whether Biden ignored the intelligence reports on embassy evacuation or just simply lied about them, it’s all so painfully meaningless; so much sound and fury, ignoring the obvious.

The obvious question is why were we there to begin with? The propaganda narrative, entitled “Operation Enduring Freedom”, was to destroy Al-Qaida, perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, and to destroy the Taliban government. That government arose in 1994 when the Mujahedeen that defeated the Soviets in 1989, in turn went on to defeat the corrupt warlord dominated government that arose in the aftermath of the Soviet defeat.

What we should understand is that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by 19 terrorists, 15 of whom were Saudis, 2 UAE citizens, one Lebanese, and one Egyptian; not only were none Afghanis, but the funding has been confirmed to have been from Saudi elites. Did we get our geography wrong or were we stupid enough to believe the false narrative, and for twenty years!

In that time, the casualty list is appalling: US military 2.5K, US allies about 1.1K, US contractors about 3.8K, Afghan military about 66K, Afghan civilians about 47K, and the “enemy” about 51K; these figures do not include the wounded, many permanently disabled. Please note that the causality rate among Afghani civilians is nearly that of the “enemy”; we killed nearly as many civilians as the “enemy”, so who were we there to fight?

This does not include the devastation to the US economy; while this and the Iraqi War cost Americans about $2T, now $6.5T including interest since the US doesn’t “pay”, it barrows endlessly, the real question is not who ended this wrong; it’s who started this moronic ideology to begin with? The answer to that is not acceptable to those who deflect the issue to who’s to blame for what just happen with the US evacuation of our Embassy in Kabul; that was as inevitable as what happened in Saigon 46 years ago.

So here we are, nearly a half century later than the end of the Viet Nam War, with the same inevitable results, and the real question is what have we learned at these terrible devastating costs? Have we degenerated hopelessly into a warfare state, where by executive order we leash hell on our own, helpless civilians as collateral damage, and an economy so indebted to mindless violence that we kill nearly as many innocents as some poorly defined “enemy”?

While Congress grapples with the stupidity of another $3.5T in spending, consider some simple housekeeping to stop the military adventurism draining this country’s resources; let’s close the 800+ military bases in about 70 foreign countries; stop stupid money like the $1.5T F35 development for a plane that can’t even fly; and above all, return war powers to the only constitutional authority, the Congress of the USA, and end the despotism of executive war powers.

Data Dependent

We have heard from various administration officials over the last few years how their decisions on policy will depend on the data and not some theoretical modeling or a priori intuition. Sounds a lot like empiricism, the basis for the scientific method, which relies on evidentiary proof based on actual life experience.

One of the problems that arise with data is when it’s subjected to an interpretation that supports a predetermined narrative. What’s needed in cases that are inherently subjective is an historical reference to what has been empirically established, if available, and not something viewed through the prism of what conveniently fits into some narrative. Unfortunately, that may not always be available.

Another problem is that quite often the data itself is misrepresented; this may be through omission, distortion or outright lies. We may not know that at the outset, but eventually it will become apparent either through further analyses or just plain calling out those who sought to mislead for whatever reason.

In either case this will create confusion not only about the decision making process, but the purported facts on which it relies. This issue is not isolated to any particular business, political party or institution as the lack of integrity and/or intelligence in policy making has become quite commonplace. We should always keep in mind Hanlon’s razor, which states “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

I am not suggesting that everything can or should be determined by data as neither common sense nor principles are subject to quantitative analyses. However, when seeking to understand natural or behavioral phenomena, good data, objectively researched and interpreted, will provide an empirical basis of understanding. That sounds all well and good, but if we judge our leaders and their so called experts based on experience we are left with a contradiction as the evidentiary proof is contrary to the policies adopted.

In economics, the most data saturated discipline there is, we can see examples of how data was used successfully or irresponsibly. Looking at just more modern presidential administrations provides us with some comparative illustrations. Nixon, who wanted to have no monetary restraints, and readily admitted that he was bored with monetary issues, severed the dollar from the gold standard. The results were catastrophic as the dollar plummeted to the point where US Treasures’ had to be denominated in Swiss Francs in order to attract buyers; the obvious calamity of runaway inflation and lack of investment caused the infamous “Stagflation” that plagued the US for decades.

Eventually Paul Volker was made Fed Chairman under Carter and Regan, instituted policies that from 1979 to 1987 managed to stabilize the dollar. With Regan and Clinton we get some data driven sanity through tax, health and welfare reform, fiscal restraint, investment incentives, free trade policies, etc.

I think it was the campaign strategist James Carville that told Clinton’s staff that the most important message they needed to understand was “It’s the economy, stupid!” Clinton’s campaign did not direct that message in those terms to the electorate, but they definitely got the message. The recession was not being properly addressed by George W.H. Bush’s campaign and that cost him the election.

It took over two decades of fiscal restraint and reforms to eventually manage a recovery, and realize deficit and debt reduction to a degree that actually resulted in a surplus. That’s what honest data driven policies did for this country back then, and we sorely need that now.

Instead we got Trump, a president about as ignorant of economics as he was of ethics, a narcissistic reality show host that was incapable of dealing with reality. True he cut taxes, which mostly benefited the rich and corporate elite, but at the same time spent money with no focus other than to manipulate the market to benefit his cronies on Wall Street; all of that was clearly done despite the data that screamed further deficits and debt. When Jerome Powell started tapering CE in late 2019, Trump threw a tantrum even before Wall Street could, and Powell, the ever ineffective sycophant that he is, immediately reversed course.

Trump’s sole contribution to health reform was to attack the ACA; true, the mandate was a horrible breach of constitutional and ethical standards and should never have been enacted, but he offered nothing else to reform what the data showed was an ineffective and wasteful system.

He eviscerated free trade with an avalanche of sanctions and tariffs that in reality were nothing more than taxes on Americans; you didn’t need a data base to figure that one out. He promised to stop the endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but failed to stop the fiscal and physical bleeding. He declared war on immigration, a strange policy considering a nation that thrives on it both economically and culturally.

It would be hard to see how things could get worse, but never underestimate a politician’s power lust. In just a few months the Biden administration makes Trump’s irresponsible policies comparatively benign. I remember how we were all appalled at the record deficit the Trump administration had created, adding to a debt burden that screamed for relief; Biden’s administration is working hard to make that many times worse.

When even the OMB, ever more Fed governors, the GSA, and even some Wall Street elites who benefit from the most drastic CE in history, speak to rising inflation, we are told by the administration, and of course the ever accommodative Chairman Powell, that it’s all transitory. Now here’s where the data makes either fools or liars of them all. Since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913, the US dollar has lost 95% of its value as of 4Q 2019 due to monetary inflation. Since then, even more to the point where the Fed now owns 76% of the Federal debt, a debt most economists know is likely to end the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency, and destroy the wealth of many Americans.

Artificially repressing interest rates has only exacerbated the problem. With real inflation running over 5%, and the UST 10 year yield at about 1.25%, we have an actual negative rate of 3.75%. Understandably the Fed has had to step in and buy the debt as foreign sovereign purchases declined as the US Treasury is no longer a safe haven. The famous writer of the Dow Theory Newsletter, Richard Russell, once said “He who understands interest earns it. He who doesn’t understand interest pays it.” History has shown that there has never been a fiat currency that has not failed; eventually, in some way, shape or form, debt will take its tool.

The Echo Chamber

“If you don’t read newspapers you are uninformed; if you do read them you are misinformed.” Mark Twain

The 2021 survey of trust in media among 46countries that are deemed to have a relatively free press by The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford University ranked Finland first with 65% of its citizens trusting its media, and the US last with media trust at only 29%. The majority of Americans surveyed responded that they found that the media has embraced advocacy journalism, particularly for the “woke” movement, and found the media overwhelmingly biased in favor of the current administration and alarmingly supportive of that same woke movement, resulting in a quasi-state media where journalists are more bound to the government’s embrace of ideology rather than independent and objective reporting.

Those surveyed also expressed dismay at the lack of support for free speech manifested by the call in both government and mass media to pressure social media to censor anyone questioning that trend. In summary, they consider the media in general to be an echo chamber of ideology rather than a reliable information source. This included many that were opposed to Trump, but found Facebook’s and Twitter’s cancellation of his accounts a troublesome example of the slippery soap of the cancel culture regarding free expression.

While this phenomenon is ostensibly different than the PRC’s closing down “The Apple Daily” in Hong Kong for its open criticism of the crackdowns, and arresting its journalists, it is still alarming that the most revered liberty of American constitutional law and free expression culture is so obviously under attack by a minority radical movement whose ideology is embraced by the press and our own government. It was the prior administration that coined the phrase “fake news” in criticism of those in the media that criticized it, and whose supporters embraced such claims even to the extent of accepting the false narrative of a fraudulent presidential election.

Among the news organizations in the US we have Fox at 46% trust and then CNN, MSNBC and Buzzfeed at 37%; things decline rapidly thereafter. So where then can Americans look for reliable, fact based and unbiased news? There then is the dilemma that provides a mere overall 29% trust rating. But what was hopeful is that local news had a 58% rating. Apparently trust of news organizations on the national level declines markedly. Interestingly, trust in government has a similar phenomenon with the local doing much better than state, and state better than federal.

Trust is an easy thing to lose as it doesn’t take much for that to happen. Many political scientists have found that one of the main reasons for the swings in partisan success in America is the extent of wrong doing by those in power. Nixon won because Johnson made so many social and military blunders; Carter won because Ford was so tainted by Nixon’s Watergate; Regan won because of the incompetence of Carter; Clinton won because Bush Sr. ignored the economy; Obama won because Bush Jr. lied about so many things; Trump won because Hilary was such a manipulative politician who alienated so many people; Biden won because Trump was such a narcissistic moron.

This decay of trust can be seen in differentials of approval ratings of recent Presidents reported by the five top polls; while there are variances in these polls, the average mean is telling. The most radical are found with the Bushs’ at around 60%; Americans don’t like body bags. Clinton, Regan and Obama all were around 30%; while reasons varied, consistency paid off. Amazingly Trump was the lowest differential at 15%, but then again he had consistently low ratings to begin with. For Biden it’s too early to tell; currently he has a 52% approval rating, but he is saddled with a wide ideological gap within his own party. Luckily for him, the Republicans are likewise fractured, perhaps even more so. The percentage of American voters who regard themselves as independents has steadily increased since 2000, now at about 41%, leaving 31% as Democrats and 26% as Republicans, and the balance with various third parties.

So along with the decline in trust, both in media and government, we have a decline in major party affiliation. But the swings in voting tendencies also indicate confusion, which coupled with distrust makes for a volatile political climate, increasingly polarized among shrinking partisan groups. In the past the press played an important role of informing the public somewhat objectively, providing a modicum of a reliable basis for a peaceful realignment and emergence of viable alternative parties.

The echo chamber of current times does not provide that. What we have instead is growing dissatisfaction, alienation and radicalization. History shows that one potential outcome is a chaotic and potentially not so peaceful realignment of political affiliations. Regardless of how it happens, the two major political parties are likely near the end of their era. Depending on what the political landscape that emerges looks like, that may very well be a good thing.

So what do we do about the echo chamber? Unfortunately for the average American there is very little to be done to change the current journalistic paradigm of mass or social media. The best course may be abstention; shut off the noise, grab some classics to read, avoid sound bites, think in a common sense mode and follow your gut. While you may not be deemed the most informed, you will be a lot less misinformed; but be careful as George Orwell cautioned that “The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.”