News & Analysis
Time Magazine Attacks Ron Paul Conservatives
Conservatives used to be the ones with heads firmly based in reality. Their reforms were powerful because they used the market, streamlined government and empowered individuals. Their effects were large-scale and important: think of the reform of the tax code in the 1980s, for example, which was spearheaded by conservatives. Today conservatives shy away from the sensible ideas of the Bowles-Simpson commission on deficit reduction because those ideas are too deeply rooted in, well, reality. – Time Magazine
Dominant Social Theme: Leviathan cannot provide prosperity for all and you better not forget it.
Free-Market Analysis: This article, written by CNN correspondent and CFR member Fareed Zakaria provides us with a good idea of the arguments that the Anglosphere elites are trying to use against the growing Internet Reformation. This sociopolitical and economic movement is one that likely cannot be stopped but the elites will do their best to slow it down and further manipulate it if they can.
The article is apparently based on the recent Republican presidential debates that no doubt frightened elite apologists. In the years since the last set of debates, the libertarian ideas of Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex) have gained considerable ground.
Much of the recent presidential debate turned on foreign policy and the idea that US imperial overreach was not feasible anymore. These were arguments that Paul was making four years ago and they were not well received by other Republican candidates. Today they have resonance. Ron Paul is making them again, with even more power and vigor.
The war on terror is a major dominant social theme of the Western power elite. As it is an amorphous concept, the elites can locate terrorists wherever they wish to create a war. The wars, as we try to repeat regularly, are not wars for resources – oil or commodities. The wars are for power and conquest.
Western elites increasingly have had less shyness about identifying their goal of formal world governance. As their ability to introduce credible fear-based promotions has waned thanks to the Internet, they have increasingly turned to force and intimidation. Force is the last bastion of an entity that has cannot persuade by others means. It seems an admission of a kind of defeat.
The war on terror sounded like a good idea hypothetically but in reality it has not proven very convincing. It is not a large enough war with not enough palpable enemies. As a dominant social theme it is failing and thus the Anglosphere elite's efforts to build a New World Order based on the threat of international terrorism is fading as well. Absent a significant false flag it is difficult to see how it can resuscitated.
This is the underlying issue that Zakaria is addressing, though he does not directly mention it. People like Zakaria, apologists for elite military manipulations, must attack current libertarian trends to try to return to the previous "conservative" paradigm that focused on moral issues, slightly reduced government programs and vastly increased military budgets.
It is the basic argument that Zakaria must make as a prominent member of the elite-dominated mainstream media. He does us the favor by presenting these arguments because they allow us to take their measure. By examining them, we can see how Money Power intends to justify the status quo.
Zakaria begins his anti-freedom jeremiad by quoting George Will who "told me conservatism is true" in a long ago interview. Conservatism was rooted in reality, and in society as it is. From Aristotle to Edmund Burke, Zakaria adds, great conservative minds have added to the canon of conservatism (whatever that is). The watchword of conservatism is not change but evolution.
Having drawn up this definition of modern American Conservatism and its putative historical roots, Zakaria is now in a position to launch his main argument, which is that modern "Conservatives" are not grounded in reality anymore but "espouse ideas drawn from abstract principles with little regard to the realities of America's present or past." What does Zakaria think of this trend? It's a tragedy, he writes, because conservatism should be a vital part of the American resurgence.
Zakaria is critical of Republican arguments against increased taxes, pointing out that the U.S. is "among the lowest taxed of the big industrial economies." He calls Republican rhetoric about lower taxes, "simply a theoretical assertion" and adds that the rich countries that are in the best shape right now, with strong growth and low unemployment, "are ones like Germany and Denmark, neither one characterized by low taxes."
He also claims that Barack Obama's administration is NOT anti-business as many have been led to believe, comparing it favorably to Richard Nixon's administration back in the 1970s, which he claims was much more hostile to business and supervised tax rates that went to 70 percent. Here are some more of his anti-conservative points:
Any discussion of government involvement in the economy — even to build vital infrastructure — is impossible because it is a cardinal tenet of the new conservatism that such involvement is always and forever bad. Meanwhile, across the globe, the world's fastest-growing economy, China, has managed to use government involvement to create growth and jobs for three decades.
From Singapore to South Korea to Germany to Canada, evidence abounds that some strategic actions by the government can act as catalysts for free-market growth. (See a dozen Republicans who could be the next President.) Of course, American history suggests that as well. In the 1950s, '60s and '70s, the U.S. government made massive investments in science and technology, in state universities and in infant industries. It built infrastructure that was the envy of the rest of the world.
Those investments triggered two generations of economic growth and put the U.S. on top of the world of technology and innovation. But that history has been forgotten.
This is really the crux of the matter. Zakaria as an elite apologist is worried that the philosophical underpinnings of the sociopolitical argument in the US have changed. And, yes, they have. Among a growing group of millions of American citizens – exposed first to the economic crisis and then to the explanations of the Internet – the clear culprit is big government just as it should be.
Zakaria essentially musters three arguments to counter this trend. The first one is that big government countries like China are growing quickly. The second is that big government investments in infrastructure are prosperity inducing. The third is that to believe one can return to small government once Leviathan has arrived is unrealistic.
In fact, China is growing quickly once again thanks to a torrent of money printing, and Zakaria knows it (but chooses to ignore it). That economy is likely going to fall off a cliff as price inflation surges. Second, it is fine to speak of big government infrastructure spending but while government can create infrastructure, it cannot sustain it. American infrastructure are headed toward ruin for just this reason.
Finally, there is the issue of "realism." This is the argument that Zakaria apparently feels most strongly about. Having arrived definitively at the era of big government, he insists that there is no going back. One assumes that the Catholic Church was making a similar argument just before the Reformation. Change was impossible. Then Luther nailed 96 theses to the church door and change happened after all.
Does anyone think we are really going to get federal spending to the level it was at under Calvin Coolidge, Zakaria asks rhetorically. He wants his readers to understand just how illogical the modern American Conservative movement really is.
He attacks not by undermining the premises of Conservatism (whatever they may be) but simply by claiming that to consider fundamental change is to be "unrealistic." This kind of argument is a fairly transparent one, however. It could be used by any dictator or despot. "I am the law. Change is futile."
Many claim such rhetoric but few are successful in the long term in creating the necessary sense of inevitability. Zakaria is ultimately worried that such unrealistic conservatism is denying the US the "logical" small "C" conservative solutions that the nation needs. Instead, he writes, what is offered are policies that don't reform but just "cut and starve" government — "a strategy that pays little attention to history or best practices from around the world and is based instead on a theory."
Actually, Zakaria pays little attention to history in this editorial, or logic or even to Adam Smith's venerable Invisible Hand. The "conservative" moment is only tenuously based in modern political theory and the idea that it goes back to the Greeks as he argues is just a lie. No great Greek philosopher of the age woke up one morning and decided to create a philosophical conversation around the idea of "conserving" the status quo. This may have been an adjunct to a larger philosophy, but a philosophy of itself it was not.
Conclusion: The world's arguments are what they always have been – ones that take place between freedom and authoritarianism. In America, the powers-that-be have tried to substitute a phony movement called "conservativism" for free-market thinking. But in the era of the Internet, that bait-and-switch has been exposed. Its exposure and the predictable rise of classical liberalism is what's really upset the elites for whom Zakaria writes.
Posted by Von on 06/23/11 05:06 PM
Fareed Zakaria is not an enemy because he's a Muslim.
Zakaria is an enemy because he is a Globalist.
Globalists (by definition) want all rights, power and control to be distant from the individual and centralized.
Localists (by definition) recognize that real power and control rests with the individual, and all social solutions that are humane and sustainable are local and personal in nature.
Globalism leads to slavery, bloodshed, poverty and death for the vast majority of humanity.
Localism leads to freedom, health, prosperity and life for the vast majority of humanity.
Don't let people like Zakaria confuse you with his complex 'establishment approved' intellectual analysis and doubletalk. That's his job.
And don't get confused or sidetracked into religeous pigeonholing and racism.
That's more collectivist b.s. and in doing so you are playing right into their hands.
Posted by Summer on 06/21/11 12:43 PM
"You have probably been brainwashed into believing that Wahhabi Islam is the only sect(or 'flavour') of Islam that exists. Sad."
Thank you, you da man!
Posted by Rastindian on 06/20/11 11:48 PM
"He is a Muslim just as Obama is, freedom is not part of their creed, repression, self sacrifice to a ideology from ancient times is. "
TDB constantly expounds on the theory that the Anglo-American PE have in all probability LOST their battle against the tribes of the afghan region.Now it is my understanding that without this most important landmass in their control,the task of the PE becomes much harder.
The Pashtuns(and Yes, they are Muslims) then are fighting what may be seen by classical liberalists as their battle, and by that conjunction it becomes Our battle here for many of us here at TDB
You have probably been brainwashed into believing that Wahhabi Islam is the only sect(or 'flavour') of Islam that exists. Sad.
Posted by free on 06/20/11 11:21 PM
"The subtle change in meaning to which the word 'freedom' was subjected in order that this argument sound plausible is important. To the great apostles of political freedom the word had meant freedom from coercion, freedom from the arbitrary power of other men, release from the ties which left the individual no choice but obedience to the orders of a superior to whom he was attached...The demand for the new freedom was [in contrast]...only a name for the old demand of an equal distribution of wealth."
The Road to Serfdom, "The Great Utopia." p. 77
Off topic kind of, but I read this today an felt it important to share.
Posted by free on 06/20/11 10:02 PM
Zararia calls himself a liberal and probably doesn't even understand the original meaning of the word or he would not use it.
People like this need to read "The Road to Serfdom" by Hayek than he would understand the pure ignorance of his muse. The left live in a cloud of bewilderment effectively repeating the socialist theme, imprisoning themselves.
This man is a product of the leftist culture as Obama is, a manufactured spokesman who has never been taught anything of freedom. He is a Muslim just as Obama is, freedom is not part of their creed, repression, self sacrifice to a ideology from ancient times is.
The world is so screwed up that we can't speak the truth, so to call this man exactly what he is would be raciest and not accepted because its not politically correct to exposed staunch believers of the Muslim faith for what they are.
Close-minded, brainwashed haters of freedom an individual rights.
Go ask his wives( he believes he should have many) and children about the freedoms they have, to start with.
This man writings are not worth the paper they are printed on, a waste of time.
Posted by dotti on 06/20/11 10:00 PM
You've got my vote.
The Founding Fathers worked long and hard on each and every word of that document. Too bad that it has been treated so carelessly of late.
Posted by dotti on 06/20/11 09:58 PM
Glad you're staying!
Posted by dotti on 06/20/11 09:58 PM
Glad you're staying!
Posted by EntropyAnn on 06/20/11 09:54 PM
Clearly, Time magazine fails to see that those large, sweeping programs were launched by people raised in the discipline of a much freer and better time for the markets, where really anyone could turn pocket change, hard work, and a good idea into fortune capable of making old world aristo/plutocrats blush. We don't have that anymore. There aren't dozens of disparate free-markets to integrate into a single, ecumenical system. Instead, you have that ecumenical system, oozing bile as it slowly dies all around us. The single, integrated and controlled society is not a desirable thing. Sadly, such small minded people and writers are incapable of wrapping their heads around this.
Posted by Bluebird on 06/20/11 09:16 PM
A "living constitution" is just some other sneaky snake's way of saying "let's get rid of that thing for good. It has stood in our way long enough." One comes out and declares their intentions, the other thinks flowery language might do the trick. Sounds good to some, but I ain't buyin' it. :-)
Posted by tjdetmers on 06/20/11 08:06 PM
A "living constitution" sounds politically correct and palatable.....unfortunately it means the same as "whichever way the wind blows....so do we go. The greed and selfishness that is inate in each one of us will guarantee that a living constitution in a democratic country is a one way ticket to destruction. In raising our children witness the success (or lack of it)where there are no hard and fast rules about correct behaviour. Our first words as a child are "mine" and me... and we believe that the world, and all the people in it, are there to serve us. Successful living comes when we discover that the TRUTH is just the opposite. The US Constitution should be read again for the first time. America is crying for the wisdom it contains.
Posted by Dave Jr on 06/20/11 07:39 PM
I am guilty of yet another emotional outburst. I do apprieciate that DB's patience is greater than mine, and that I am allowed to speak my mind in disagreement. They haven't kicked me out yet. And, I don't have any better place to go.
Posted by Dave Jr on 06/20/11 07:27 PM
Some of my "conservative" friends will remark that it isn't 1786 anymore and entertain the idea of a "living constitution". I tell them that's what Constitutional Ammendments are for. But with the current public mindset, even that prospect is pretty chilling.
Posted by dotti on 06/20/11 07:26 PM
Makes me wish we could bring back some of the Founding Fathers for just one day!!! There is a reason that there are only two senators from each state, regardless of the population.
Idiots!!! They're all idiots.
Not you, Bluebird--the little man and others like him.
Posted by dotti on 06/20/11 07:22 PM
RE: Perhaps my time here is done.
Dave, say it ain't so...
That doesn't mean you won't be here anymore, does it?
Posted by Bluebird on 06/20/11 03:17 PM
One thing he points out is that in the Senate, Wisconsin's 6 mil. people get the same representation as California's 36 mil. people. In other words, we need more Senators from Cal. than other places. And of course, California is the role model we all need? Whoopee, maybe we even need more like Nancy in the House!
Posted by Bluebird on 06/20/11 03:04 PM
No you are not, Dave. The Constituion is not perfect and is being trashed, but it DOES hold them back a little. Today he is calling for people to join the discussion to seee what needs to be changed about it. (If it is dismantled, we have no need for elections and the current leaders can just come out and declare themselves the dictators they are without the need to pretend we have a say by voting.) They are being exposed for what they are and if this awakening is not halted, these elites will lose ground. Ron Paul has the gumption to try and pull the rug out from under them. They are attacking in whatever little corner they can find. This is just more of the same.
Posted by Dave Jr on 06/20/11 02:37 PM
I guess I am pretty dumb. What is he up to?
Posted by Bluebird on 06/20/11 01:50 PM
I see this same little man on CNN today saying we need to update the Constitution, particularly the electorial process. It is not hard to see what he is up to. I hope no one takes him as credible.
Posted by Dave Jr on 06/20/11 01:42 PM
Yeah, but they are claiming resources are NOT relevant in the PEs goal of global control. 1+1=2, but forget about 1. The whole equation falls apart.