Might Libertarianism Offer A Solution to Bipartisan Discontent?

Recent discontent over excessive government spending has manifest itself across party lines. Many feel they have been hoodwinked by a false dichotomy: vote Democratic and you get big government; vote Republican and you get small government. This right-left distinction has proved a sham. Republicans took control in 2000-2006 in reaction against pork barrel spending and proved to be fiscal liberals. The backlash has been a near-complete loss of power. But, to no surprise, the Democrats have proven just as fiscally liberal.

The bipartisan discontent shows an awakening to the fact that these two parties do not present a choice between left (more government) and right (less government) but between north (big socially liberal government) and south (big socially conservative government). On the sliding scale of government size, no difference can be seen. Thus, the partisan rhetoric boils down to this: toward which agendas and constituencies would you like that irresponsibility directed?

Republicans have recognized this bipartisan discontent and see it as an opportunity to regain power. We hear talk from Republicans of them having lost their way and needing to return to their basic principles. The problem, however, is that Republicans have lost the trust of the people, and rightly so. The veil is falling and the people are no longer interested in allowing the federal Juggernaut to continue to grow in size and power, simply voting on who gets to sit at the wheel.

So, is there a long-term solution? I believe libertarianism offers one precisely because a true libertarian has one aim on a federal level, namely, to shrink the federal Juggernaut down to size and get it out of state business. The question, however, is whether disgruntled republicans and democrats can get past their issue-based divisions. Can bipartisan unity survive the utterance of the words “abortion,” “gay marriage,” “stem cell research,” “legalized marijuana”? I believe it can if a fundamental shift in perspective comes first.

The shift in perspective to which I refer is this: social issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and drug legalization are not to be solved on a federal level. If this premise is embraced, it becomes irrelevant to a federal election what one thinks about abortion, gay marriage, or any other state issue. The ideal presidential candidate would thus identify these issues as irrelevant because, if elected, the presidential duties will be restricted to those of military, boarder control, and international affairs, while all other matters will be issues of state; the candidate’s stance is thus as relevant as whether he/she is a Cubs fan. So long as voters agree on the need to put the fed in its place, they can put aside their differences on these and other hot-button issues because, if successful, the fed will not decide these issues; the respective states will. Bipartisan unity can thrive on a federal level, therefore, if parties call “truce” on hot-button issues as battles to be fought on a state level, and unite under the common aim of reducing federal spending and involvement in the private sector by pushing the fed out of state business.

Now, I realize that on many of these issues voters have an all-or-nothing mindset. Take abortion, for example. Many pro-life advocates think this issue is so serious that it merits an all-or-nothing stance and the federal government should ban it, full stop. I am certainly sympathetic to this perspective (see my post, Should Christians be One-Issue Voters?). However, a pro-life advocate needs to ask themselves: Would you rather have five, ten, fifteen, or more states in which the pro-life effort has succeeded? Or would you rather have what we have now? And the same line of inquiry applies to any other issue about which a given constituency is passionate.

U.S. politics has, unfortunately, become a zero-sum game. Every issue is to be decided at a federal level and imposed on all people of all united states. This situation is maddening, as it binds the hands of the people and escalates the hostilities that arise amid these issues precisely because voters feel helpless against the all-pervasive power of the federal government. Bad policies become bad policies for all, and the only retreat is (a) to wait, vote, and hope that something changes or (b) to flee the country.

If sovereignty were returned to the state, a pro-life individual could protest abortion by leaving her pro-abortion state. Or, if she felt inclined to stay and engage in political activism, she could attempt to persuade voters in that state of the reasonableness of a pro-life stance. Such options are empowering because the individual is not bound by the given policy, full stop; she has the freedom to flee the given policy or to seek to change the policy. Even when choosing the latter, she is freely bound. (As a sidebar, we might add that such a model is additionally empowering because the task of persuading individuals in one state is far less daunting than the task of persuading the majority of voters in fifty states, plus representatives, plus the president, plus judges.)

As things stand, the difficulty we face is that if, for example, a Green push occurs on the initiative of a California-based group, it often occurs on a federal level. If successful, the country goes Green. Farmers in Iowa are forced to comply with the same Green regulations forced on pollution-producing cities such as Chicago, L.A., and New York. In a libertarian model, however, states such as California and New York, which have a significant social-liberal constituency, can push through as much of the Green agenda as they please. It will affect only their state. Those bound by such regulations in that state are willfully bound; and any who disapprove can go elsewhere.

Rather than forcing uniformity among states, the libertarian model allows the people to determine their individual (state) government on a small scale. If a state wants universal health care, they can push it through; and if the wealthy don’t want to pay for it, they can relocate. Poor economic policies will show their stripes and the state will suffer the consequences. States that embrace such policy will see their state crumble and their voters flee; states that function well will thrive. Such was the wisdom of the founding fathers.

The point of all this boils down to one hope: my hope is that what we will see is a massive bipartisan unification on the federal level; that voters will, in mass numbers, become libertarians in federal matters, and divide into issue-based parties at the state level; that hot-button issues will be pushed aside during federal elections as irrelevant red herrings, meant to divide voters and keep them in the stranglehold of a two-party system; and that only those candidates that campaign on the platform of retracting federal involvement in state matters will gain a hearing.

I am convinced that the only way of cultivating bipartisan discontent is for individuals to be non-partisan, federal libertarians and partisan members of their respective states. If agreement could be had on this, then real change could occur in which all non-military/non-international federal programs and spending could be dissolved and the will of the people could be done state-to-state. Wisdom would then be proved by her actions as states reap what their citizens sow.

All this can happen. But it requires that voters be a member of one party on the federal level and another on a state level; that they treat federal matters as wholly different than state matters; that they push aside partisan differences when it comes to federal elections because they have only one demand: get the feds out of the state!

Abortion and Obama’s First 100 Days

President Obama promised change, and change we have seen. One change that is abundantly clear is this. After these first 100 days in office, the President has shown his radical pro-abortion stripes — stripes that many, including myself, had warned about during the last election cycle (see, for example, Robert George, “Obama’s Abortion Extremism”).

In a post earlier this year, Do Christian Obama Supporters have Buyer’s Remorse, I made the following observation:

During the election season, I found that a great many professing Christians were abandoning conservative leanings in favor of an Obama presidency. Those in this category with whom I spoke personally had evidently been influenced by Jim Wallis, or a Wallis-like perspective. They professed to be adamant “pro-lifers” but argued that pro-life includes opposition to war, opposition to the death penalty, opposition to poverty, and so forth. Abortion is just one of many issues, so they argued. And, in the end, we have seen that voting strictly on the abortion issue does not change anything; it remains legal, so why waste a vote on that one issue when there are so many other issues on the table?

I made the point then that, for anyone paying attention, a great many things have change — specifically in the abortion arena — in a very short period of time “thanks” to Obama. Now that 100 days have passed, I make this point again.

The following is courtesy of the Susan B. Anthony List.

Several months ago, we told you about a 55-page report that the abortion industry submitted to the Obama-Biden transition team. The report listed the demands of the abortion industry for Obama’s first 100 days in office.

 Obama has implemented 10 of the 15 demands.

 Here are just some of the items on the radical pro-abortion agenda that President Obama implemented or is in process of implementing in his first 100 days.

 - Repealed the pro-life Mexico City Policy, allowing your tax dollars to fund international abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood.

 - Removed important conscience protections for medical professionals who choose to follow their conscience and refuse to participate in abortion procedures.

 - Increased Title X taxpayer funding (the slush fund for Planned Parenthood) to $307 million in 2009.

 - Restored $50 million in funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNPFA), which funds China’s One-Child policy and other abortion providers around the world.

 - Increased funding for International Family Planning by 19% for a total of $545 million.

 - Nominated cabinet officials and judges such as Kathleen Sebelius, Dawn Johnsen, and David Hamilton, who will do all they can to advance the pro-abortion agenda.

Needless to say, the neo-evangelical montra “Why vote based on abortion? It doesn’t change anything” has proven itself to be a sad falsehood. I wish it had proven true.

Related Posts

Do Christian Obama Supporters have Buyer’s Remorse?

Should Christians Be One-Issue Voters?

Shame on Notre Dame

Are Conservatives Champions of Moral Values?

Private Liberal Arts Education gets hit by the Perfect Storm

Private liberal arts education has been hit hard in recent years. Prior to the current economic fallout, liberal arts colleges were already seeing declining numbers. The reasons are manifold, but one serious contributor is the growing pragmatism of the average American student.

There was a time when a liberal arts education meant something. People went to college to become well-educated, well-rounded individuals. Liberal arts colleges offered the opportunity to be educated in the full spectrum of academic disciplines, thus forming students into well-educated, well-rounded individuals. At some point, however, this mentality was replaced with the pragmatic view that one goes to college simply to get a better job. This pragmatism, for many, has usurped the desire to be well-educated. — As a college Professor, I can testify that the majority of my students are far more interested in Twitter and ipods than they are in learning. — Courses are hoops through which students must jump in order to get a piece of paper that will (so they are told) open the door to a brighter tomorrow.

Yet, those of this pragmatic mindset are slowly realizing that the same piece of paper can be had via community college — and at a significantly lower price. As a result, private liberal arts colleges report diminishing enrollment. (As anecdotal evidence, I can report diminished enrollment in my part of the country reaching between 10% and 19%, while local community colleges report a 33% increase in enrollment.) This is bad news for private liberal arts schools. Many have been forced to cut faculty and staff, and with the current economic situation, these cuts have skyrocketed. Schools have gone into survival mode, indefinitely covering course loads at half the cost (and without benefits) by using adjuncts. And this can be done indefinitely due to the flood of naive graduate students who think they are getting a foot in the door, when in fact they are victims of drastic measures on the part of local colleges.

To be sure, the economic crisis hits private liberal arts education from every angle. The cost of private liberal arts education is difficult to stomach for most. Even parents who retain a love of liberal arts education are losing jobs and resources, which forces pragmatism and increases the appeal of educational alternatives for their children, such as community college. Colleges’ endowments decrease in value as the market plummets and the dollar loses value. Alumni giving also decreases in lean economic times. And this affects incoming grants, which are often based in large part on the percentage of alumni giving back to the school. Needless to say, the fiscal losses increase exponentially.

Combine the aforementioned pragmatism with the current economic conditions and you find a clear explanation of why a great many liberal arts colleges are getting hit by the perfect storm. The market for well-rounded, rigorous education has diminished, costs have increased, and economic conditions cut into the schools’ funds on every front.

As a result of all this the academic job market has become cutthroat. The flood of newly graduating PhDs face not only seriously diminished openings but find themselves up against seasoned applicants who have recently been laid off due to college cut backs.

A recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education gave the straight dope on the academic job market, writ large in its title: “Graduate School in the Humanities: Just Don’t Go.” The author, Thomas H. Benton, concludes that there are only four conditions under which he would recommend that someone pursue graduate education in the humanities with a view to the professorship:

1. You are independently wealthy, and you have no need to earn a living for yourself or provide for anyone else.
2. You come from that small class of well-connected people in academe who will be able to find a place for you somewhere.
3. You can rely on a partner to provide all of the income and benefits needed by your household.
4. You are earning a credential for a position that you already hold – such as a high-school teacher – and your employer is paying for it.

Benton’s conditions speak for themselves.

Were this situation not bleak enough, a new set of clouds are on the horizon, which could well render a deathblow to many private liberal arts institutions. We all know that Obama is big on federal funding for education. But it has also become abundantly clear that Obama is in favor of federal funding for State institutions only. This has come across loud and clear (a) in the explicit bailout/stimulous opposition to aid for private Christian education, and (b) in Obama’s (shameful and hypocritical) opposition to vouchers in Washington D.C., which — let’s face it — simply ensures that no federal money may go to schools that do not fund teachers’ unions. (Heaven forbid anyone get a good education on the tax payers’ dime!) Obama has also made clear that he wants the federal funding of education to continue well beyond high school to the person’s first job. This would mean extending federal funds through college and graduate school.

What does this mean for private liberal arts colleges and graduate schools? It means that these private institutions, which are already struggling to compete with the growing pragmatism of the average student and the current economic realities, will be dealt a deathblow by the federal government. The pragmatism that asks “Why pay twice as much for a liberal arts education, when I can get the paper I need for half the price?” will now ask “Why pay for a private liberal arts education when the government will flip the bill if I go to a federally funded school?” In short, the government will become the greatest opponent of private liberal arts education if Obama gets his way.

Why Aristotle Would Approve of Colonial America — Thoughts on Democracy and the Right to Vote

In his Politics, Aristotle considers the pros and cons of various forms of government, eventually arriving at what he believes to be the most practical (not to be confused with the most ideal), namely, a limited democracy run by the middleclass.

Now, before we accuse Aristotle of bigotry, let’s hear him out. His reasoning is this. The poor are prone to resent the rich, which, in democracy, can lead to a tyrannical mistreatment of the wealthy. For those offended by this claim, rest assured that Aristotle’s class criticism cuts two ways: the rich, says Aristotle, are prone to greed, which can lead to a tyrannical oppression of the poor.

Aristotle harbors no naive or idealistic notions about correcting this class warfare; he takes it as given. His goal instead is to find a political system that naturally counteracts it. The middleclass, argues Aristotle, are less prone to class warfare than either the rich or the poor. Unlike the poor, they do not detest or resent the rich; unlike the rich, they are not inclined to oppress the poor. This is not to say the middleclass is virtuous. But it is to say that, whatever vices the middleclass may have, they are less likely to be vices of class warfare. A middleclass democracy can therefore serve as a social stabilizing force.

What I find rather interesting about Aristotle’s position is that colonial America was functionally Aristotelian. Allow me to explain.

In colonial America, only landowners had the right to vote. While the rationale may have been different than Aristotle’s, functionally this voting model ensured precisely what Aristotle had envisioned. When only land owners can vote, then the clear majority of voters will be middleclass. Lower-income land owners can vote, as can wealthy land owners. But the wealthy will be in the clear minority, and low-income land owners, while having sway, will not outnumber the middleclass. Middleclass America, therefore, functionally becomes the ruling class in the colonial democratic system.

While I harbor no delusions that we might one day return to the democracy of colonial America (and thus, this post may serve no point other than airing some practical wisdom), I must admit — anticipating a charge of bigotry for this admission — that I think Aristotle may be onto something. It does seem that we are witnessing class warfare in the U.S., which is generally unhealthy and unhelpful. And functional middleclass democracy could well remedy such ills. Moreover, a middleclass democracy would address (to an extent) Plato’s complaint with democracy, namely, that it gives the most power to the least wise. A middleclass democracy, while not nearly as wise as Plato (or I) would prefer, would increase nonetheless the overall level of education among voters relative to our current non-colonial democracy.

But alas, it’s unlikely that such change could ever be enacted in the States. If it came to a vote, the least wise currently have the most power, and a little propoganda would easily overcome right reason.

Newt Gingrich on the Anti-Religious, Secular Obama Administration

In an interview last night (April 7, 2009), Newt Gingrich went on record in no uncertain terms about the anti-religious, secular nature of the Obama administration. Hats off to Newt for telling it like it is. Obama may refuse to be at war with Islam, but he shows no reluctance about declaring war on Christianity.

I hope more conservatives — specifically those of religious conviction — will muster the courage Newt displayed last night and be equally candid about this administration. You can see the complete interview with Gingrich here: Newt interview.

Postscript: I have often wondered why Newt would not make a viable presidential candidate — in fact, I asked numerous people that very question during the last election. Whenever I’ve heard him speak on economic policy, foreign policy, or any other matter, he has proven far more insightful and informed than the majority of political talking heads. The reply is always that he comes with too much baggage, and most who say this have in mind an affair he had some years back.

No doubt a moral failing such as infidelity calls into question a person’s character and should be a source of concern for voters. However, such concerns typically fall to the side of social conservatives, usually those of religious stripes (a fact demonstrated during the Clinton fiasco). Yet, such religiously-minded conservatives also believe in the reality of conversion by which a person is genuinely transformed by God. Newt is a Catholic convert, who is unashamed to speak about his new-found faith. To my mind, this fact should offset, if not undo, the worries that his past infidelity might stir in religious conservatives. Just a thought.

Contrition or Derision? Obama Admits U.S. Arrogance

In a recent speech in Strasbourg, France, President Obama conceded before French and German listeners that U.S. posturing in past foreign relations has been arrogant, dismissive, and derisive. The comment that has sparked controversy reads as follows:

In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and partner with you in meeting common Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you, there have been times America’s shown arrogance, and been dismissive, even derisive.

The context of the comment was a two-sided remark, meant to suggest that there has been mutual fault. Not only has America been arrogant, dismissive, and derisive, but, “in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious.” In short, Obama called for both sides to put aside the past, acknowledge that we have each done wrong, and commit to working together.

Were President Obama’s comments appropriate? Was this a much-needed act of public contrition?

Without question, Obama’s comments were postured as an act of public contrition; and, for my part, I think it is appropriate for public figures to admit fault and demonstrate contrition. However, Obama’s speech was no act of contrition. Obama’s speech was a public derision of George W. Bush’s foreign policies, falsely postured as public contrition. And that is what is most objectionable about Obama’s remarks.

When saying that the U.S. has been this or that, Obama did not mean he has been this or that. He meant that Bush was this or that, and, by association, Bush supporters have been this or that. In other words, Obama’s comments were a public, and indeed international, derision of the former administration; a public, and indeed international, derision of U.S. citizens who — whether rightly or not — supported Bush; and a public, and indeed international, shifting of blame. And were this not contemptible enough, Obama had the audacity to couch such public derision and blame-shifting as contrition.

Obama could have said that we need to put aside the past, along with whatever mistakes have been made on either side, and move ahead in unison. Such comments would have been perfectly acceptable and communicated that we have a new administration, while also avoiding showing public contempt for the former administration. But Obama did not choose the high road. He chose arrogance; he chose public contempt; he chose to ostracize on an international stage those who are not of like-mind with him.

If one wants an example of arrogance on an international level, one need look no further than Obama’s own words.

From the Horse’s Mouth: Daniel Hannan of European Parliament on Spending, Debt, and Universal Healthcare

Daniel Hannan, British member of the European parliament, delivered an excellent address to Prime Minister Gordon Brown before the European parliament concerning excessive spending, debt, and inflation. Hannan’s address is articulate, witty, and timely. It could easily have been delivered before Congress or Obama himself with just as much relevance. I applauded after hearing it. Do yourself a favor and watch. Here is a highlight:

Now once again today you tried to spread the blame around. You spoke about an international recession, international crisis. We are now running a deficit that touches 10 percent of GDP, an almost unbelievable figure. Now, it’s not that you’re not apologizing. Like everyone else, I’ve long accepted that you’re pathologically incapable of accepting responsibility for these things. It’s that you’re carrying on willfully worsening our situation, wantonly spending what little we have left. Last year, in the last 12 months, 100,000 private-sector jobs have been lost, and yet, you created 30,000 public-sector jobs. Prime Minister, you cannot carry on forever squeezing the productive bit of the economy in order to fund an unprecedented engorgement of the unproductive bit. You cannot spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt, and when you repeat in that wooden and perfunctory way, that our situation is better than others, that we’re well placed to weather the storm, I have to tell you, you sound like Brezhev-era apparatchik giving the party line. You know and we know and you know that we know that it’s non-sense. 

Hannan was later interviewed by Sean Hannity. Now, for those who dislike Hannity, I am sympathetic. He is too partisan for my liking. Nonetheless, his interview with Hannan is worth watching, as Hannan, who was apparently a supporter of Obama during this last election cycle, is very clear about the misguided trajectory of the Obama administration. 

When asked about universal, socialized healthcare, Hannan’s warning was clear: “If you get nothing else from what I’m saying this evening, please do not make that mistake. If there are any Congressmen watching this who think, ‘Yeah, it might be a bit fairer; yeah, it would be a bit sort of cozy.’ I promise you, [universal healthcare] is worse for doctors. It is worse for patience. It is worse for tax payers.” To be sure, this is not partisan speak. This is not a member of the GOP criticizing some Democrat’s agenda. This is a European politician who is all too familiar with European-style healthcare, warning the U.S. to beware of the universal healthcare push.

 

He goes on to encourage a return to small government over against the current Europeanization push. His comments are pointed:

 

What made your country great, what made your people strong and prosperous and free was that it was small government right from the beginning. Right from the Declaration of Independence there was a distrust of the concentration of power and a confidence in the freedom of the individual. People will always make better decisions for themselves than administrators will make for them. And when you lose that — if you Europeanize yourself under the illusion that it’s a bit hipper and a bit nicer and cuddlier and will make you more popular in the world — you will throw away what made people actually respect you, not least because they understand that it’s what has underpinned their own security.

 

The full interview can be viewed by clicking here. You can read Hannan’s blog at www.Hannan.co.uk.

 

Shame on Notre Dame

University of Notre Dame has been in the press lately for its decision to have President Obama deliver this May’s commencement address. Were this decision not controversial enough in its own right, the university plans to award Obama an honorary doctor of laws degree at the ceremony. In short, one of the premier Catholic universities in the country — a university that ought to stand in opposition to the President’s unprecedentedly radical anti-life policies — has chosen instead to honor the President before its student body and the public eye.

Needless to say, Catholics and Christians everywhere are outraged. And this outrage has been public and unabashed in the hope that the University will repent (lit. change its mind).

One could argue in Notre Dame’s defense that the invitation was not extended to Obama, per se. The University has a standing invitation to the U. S. President to speak at commencement; and thus, the invitation was extended to whomever occupies that office. That Obama received the invite is incidental.

The difficulty with this reply is twofold. First, the University has gone above and beyond its standing invitation in choosing to honor the President with an honorary doctorate. This act indicates an honoring of Obama himself. Second, the standing invitation does not bind Notre Dame’s hands. If anything, it provided Notre Dame an opportunity to make a very bold statement as a Catholic institution concerning the President’s appalling policies on abortion and human experimentation. Notre Dame could have taken the opportunity to notify the Whitehouse that it withdraws its standing invitation in explicit protest against the President’s anti-life policies. In fact, as a Catholic institution, it was obligated by Creed and conscience to do so. But they did not.

Now, granted, Notre Dame is in an awkward position. As a university, it is concerned with enrollment and donations, and these economic times have been extremely difficult on academic institutions. Whatever Notre Dame had decided, there would have been lash back. Either Notre Dame would be subject to outrage from pro-choice advocates and Obama supporters, or Notre Dame would be subject to protest from faithful Catholics and Christians who see the university’s actions as the height of hypocrisy. Notre Dame chose the latter. They took the wrong road.

However awkward the decision, the fact remains: for a Catholic University, the right decision is obvious — even if awkward. As a Catholic university, Notre Dame should be concerned with the approval of the Church and those faithful to her. Yet, Notre Dame has chosen the wrong path. They have chosen to stand publicly against the Catholic Church with which they claim affiliation. They have chosen to alienate and outrage faithful Catholics and Christians everywhere, leaving the university only the approval of nominal Catholics and those outside of and indeed against the teachings of the Catholic Church. They chose to shame those who were once proud graduates of this Catholic university. In short, they have chosen death over life, the world over Christ.

If a university can apostatize, no doubt this is an act of apostasy on the part of Notre Dame.

Related Links

Rev. Robert Sirico, “My Letter to Notre Dame President Rev. John Jenkins”

P. J. O’Rourke, “Stem Cell Sham: The President as Sophist”

Robert George, “Obama’s Abortion Extremism”

“Obama Lifts Ban on Overseas Abortion Funding”

“Health Workers’ ‘Conscience’ Rule Set to be Voided”

“Pope Benedict Strongly Rebukes Pelosi over Abortion”

“Catholic Bishops Warn Obama They’ll Fight on Abortion”

“Catholic Bishops Plan to Forcefully Confront Obama”

Related Posts

“Do Christian Obama Supporters have Buyer’s Remorse?”

“Should Christians Be One-Issue Voters?”

“Are Conservatives Champions of ‘Moral Values’?”

AIG Chairman Liddy, Can You Say “Scapegoat”?

scape·goat [skeyp-goht] -noun. a person or group to bear the blame for others or to suffer in their place.

For those unfamiliar with the background of the word “scapegoat,” it can be found in Leviticus 16. On the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), the Jewish high priest would symbolically lay the sins of the people on the head of a goat and release it into the desert to die — alone.

Congress has chosen their scapegoat, and his name is Edward Liddy.

Liddy, current AIG Chairman, was grilled yesterday by a House panel concerning the $165 million in bonuses distributed to AIG executives. Representatives expressed outrage at this irresponsible use of the $170 billion in federal bailout money. And, according to a Rasmussen Reports poll, 76 percent of Americans feel the same.

Is this outrage warranted? I believe it is, but it should not be directed at AIG or its executives. It should be directed at Congress.

AIG had a legal obligation to pay these execs the bonuses specified in their contracts, whether we like it or not. And the reason they were legally bound to do so was because of the chosen bailout strategy of Congress.

When passing the bill to bailout AIG, Congress had three options:

Option 1: Give the $170 billion to AIG, so that they can continue to conduct business as usual — which includes paying execs bonuses stipulated in their contracts.

Option 2: Demand that AIG declare bankruptcy and renegotiate contracts to exclude the bonuses in question until AIG is up and running on its own two feet.

Option 3: Specify in the bill that the money may not be used for bonuses and risk the execs leveling lawsuits against AIG — an action that would require AIG to either pay the money anyway or spend additional tax payer dollars fighting the suits.

Congress chose Option 1. Senator Dodd admitted in an interview yesterday that lawmakers knew about the bonuses and had a back-and-forth over the matter with the Treasury Department (although he was evasive regarding names). According to Dodd, the Treasury Department expressed explicit concern over Option 3 and its legal risks, which is why they chose Option 1.

Make no mistake, if Congress wanted to minimize the cost to tax payers, they could have chosen Option 2. But they did not. What they chose instead was a three-step plan.

Step 1: declare AIG too big to fail and remove Option 2 (bankruptcy) from the table.

Step 2: pass a bill endorsing Option 1 (bailout with bonuses) in order to avoid the legal risks wrapped up in Option 3 (bailout without bonuses).

Step 3: play dumb regarding executive bonuses, and hold hearings regarding bonuses under the auspice of moral outrage.

To be fair, some of the Reps are not playing dumb. They simply don’t read the bills they sign — the bills we pay them to sign. (Somehow this has become acceptable commonplace.)

But for those who did know — Dodd, Geithner, et al. – to choose Option 1 and then pretend that AIG has no legal obligation in the matter is audacity and duplicity of the highest order! — an audacity best displayed yesterday by self-righteousness of Representative Stephen Lynch (D-Mass).

So, who is to blame? Blame Congress who wrote the bill. Blame Dodd and Geithner. Blame the lawmakers who did not read the bill. Such blame is well deserved. But who is being blame? Liddy, the AIG Chairman who came into AIG after contracts were negotiated; Liddy, the Chairman who is taking a salary of $1/year until this mess is fixed.

Can you say “scapegoat”?

I would like to introduce one more vocab word before I close — this one is actually two words:

red her·ring [red her-ing] -noun. something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand; a misleading clue.

This phrase has a hunting background. When training a dog to track prey, hunters would wipe a herring across their pathway to see if the dog-in-training would be distracted by the foreign scent or continue to chase what he should be chasing. And so it is in this case.

Are these hearings really about money? Certainly not. If these hearings were about money, our Reps would be grilling AIG about the $72 billion they funneled to other banks before stabilizing their own operation. This is not about money. Our Reps are currently some of the most fiscally irresponsible people in the country, and that is what these hearings are about. These hearings give them the opportunity to shift blame and present themselves as fiscally responsible folk, concerned with the spending of your money.

If Congress were really concerned with pinching pennies, why are they focused on $165 million AIG was legally obligated to pay its execs, rather than the $3.6 trillion budget proposal the American people have yet to pay? And wasn’t there something recently about over $7 billion in earmarks that Reps were too busy to sort through?

Can you say “red herring”?

I agree, release the hounds on the fiscally irresponsible. Release them on Obama, on Pelosi, and on Congress, all of whom have been spending money like drunken sailors. Release the hounds on those who think pouring more money into hearings about AIG bonuses, which don’t even register on the spending scale, is good because it distracts from their excessive spending. Release the hounds on those who did not demand that AIG declare bankruptcy and restructure. But do not release the hounds on Liddy. This is a red herring. And Liddy is a scapegoat.

Are Conservatives Champions of “Moral Values”?

One of the angles social (as opposed to economic) conservatives have taken in recent decades is that they are advocates and protectors of “moral values.” This pitch has been one of the primary draws for “right wing” evangelicals. It has also been one of the main irritations for those who stand outside of evangelical values — homosexuals and pro-choice advocates being two primary examples.

The main complaint against this moral-agenda pitch is that right wingers (evangelical or otherwise) want to legislate morality. But is this accurate? Are conservatives driven by moral values? Do conservatives really want to legislate morality?

I would answer No, as I do not think social conservatism is rightly characterized as a moral-value agenda. In fact, I think the moral-value angle is a dreadful miscalculation on the part of conservatives, which has in many ways hurt the presentation of its positions.

So, if not based on moral values, on what is conservative social policy based? I would argue that conservatism proper is driven by civil rights and civil liberties.

Now, I realize that this claim will strike many readers as counter intuitive, if not laughable. After all, are not liberals the ones who champion the rights of women and homosexuals? Are not they the pro-choice and pro-gay-marriage party? The answer is Yes, liberals do advocate these issues and typically couch their advocacy in a concern for either civil rights or civil liberties. However, conservatives oppose these positions on the very same grounds. And the failing of conservatism has been its inability to properly articulate its opposition to social liberalism as opposition rooted in the preservation of such rights.

Take gay marriage as an example. Regrettably, much opposition to gay marriage has been couched in talk of “redefining” the institution, and many are clear that they understand the current “definition” to be based on the Bible. Presented in this way, the issue seems to be one of an imposition of a Christian view of marriage on the broader society. Yet, the real concern in conservative circles has to do with the social ramifications of gay marriage, not with protecting biblical doctrine. Conservatives are concerned that, if the State sanctions homosexual marriage, the State’s approval of homosexual marriage will trickle down into other public policies.

Will hate-speech, for example, come to include moral disapproval of homosexuality? Conservatives see this as part of the long-term agenda of gay-marriage advocates, even if not part of the immediate agenda. To be sure, conservative reservations are not rooted in fear of homosexuals. If fear is present, it is fear that pastors and priests will be gagged by the State under the auspice of hate-speech. In other words, the basic concern is that what is being pushed as a “civil right” for homosexuals will come to rob the broader public of rights such as free speech and freedom of religion. The concern is not to hinder one group’s civil rights but to preserve the more fundamental rights of the broader culture.

This concern stretches into the sphere of education as well. Many are concerned that State approval of homosexual marriage will morph into public school approval, and soon children will be introduced nonchalantly to stories about my two moms as part of the regular curriculum, giving children the impression that there is no moral question on the matter — homosexuality is unexceptional, acceptable, and morally permissible. Parents who desire to raise their children in accord with their personal moral and religious beliefs are concerned that, in such a scenario, they will not only be continually battling shifts in culture, but also in school curriculum. And, when combined with the aforementioned hate-speech concerns, there is the added concern that, in the future, there could be even more serious ramifications for butting heads with schools (ramifications involving child services, for example), as the State becomes defender of homosexuality. Again, whatever fear may be present is not fear of homosexuals; it is fear of losing a fundamental civil liberty, namely, the liberty to teach one’s children specific moral and religious values without repercussion from the State.

To be sure, conservatives do not aim at making homosexuality illegal. What a person chooses to do sexually falls in bounds of his or her right to pursue happiness in whatever way he or she sees fit. Yet, the notion of civil liberty dictates that one’s pursuit of happiness ends at the tip of his or her neighbor’s nose. Therefore, while a homosexual is legally permitted to pursue happiness by means of a homosexual relationship, he or she is not permitted to violate someone else’s rights in the process. And given that, among the fundamental civil rights in this country are free speech and freedom of religion, sanctioning homosexual marriage at the risk of these fundamental rights makes homosexual marriage a nonstarter.

Again, this does not mean that conservatives (or at least sober-minded conservatives) want Christianity or Christian values to be taught in schools, as this would be a violation in the opposite direction. Conservatism treats instruction in moral and religious values as a protected right of the private sector. Public schools should not venture into such areas, as these belong to the spheres of family, Church, and private schools, respectively, and should be protected as such. A properly conservative stance, then, opposes homosexual marriage on grounds of protecting the fundamental civil rights of the broader society — to wit, free speech and freedom of religion — without infringing upon the freedom of homosexuals to pursue happiness via homosexual relationships and activities.

A similar point emerges when considering the abortion issue. Do conservatives oppose abortion because it is immoral? No doubt many conservatives understand abortion to be morally impermissible and oppose it as such; but simply asserting that abortion is immoral does not decide the legal issue. After all, a great many things that are immoral are legal. Morality and law intersect in the sphere of civil liberties and civil rights. Murder, for example, is illegal not because it is immoral but because it is one of the most flagrant violations of the most fundamental civil right, namely, the right to life. And so it is with abortion.

Pro-life advocacy proceeds on the assumption that what a mother aborts is a human life. Regardless of whether that human life is fully developed or sustainable outside of the womb, its DNA says it is human; it has a heartbeat; and within only a matter of weeks, its humanity is empirically evident. As such, that human life, per our U.S. constitution, has an inalienable right to life. And no person may violate that right.

Unfortunately, conservatives have had the tables turned on them. Pro-choice has advanced on the assertion that a mother has the right to choose whether her child lives or dies. Of course, this claim is strange, as no grounds are forwarded in its defense; it is mere political fiat. Early on this assertion was defended with slogans such as my body, my choice. But DNA proves otherwise. The child is not the woman’s body, as it has a unique genetic identity all its own. Science thus demonstrates the pro-life position: the fetus is verifiably human and can be verified as having an identity distinct from the mother. Therefore, this human life has the inalienable right to life, and the mother cannot take that from this human person, for it is not her body. It is a unique human individual, distinct from her. To protect that life (even from its mother) is the duty of the State, a duty beckoned by the most basic of all civil rights — the right to life.

My point in all this is simple: these conservative stances, while often characterized as moral agendas, are in fact matters of civil liberties and civil rights. The goal is not to impose morality on any given peoples within the U.S. The goal is to preserve the fundamental rights of citizens — all citizens. And the failure to make this clear has been one of the most serious tactical errors on the part of conservatives.

I think social conservatives would be well-served if they abandoned their claim to champion moral values, and presented themselves as what they in fact are: defenders of civil rights and civil liberties.