Slouching Towards Statism

I've been thinking a lot lately about our globe's two basic forms of governance -- Statist nations that see the people as a means to government's ends and Individualist nations in which government represents and protects the will of the people.

I can find no better illustration of the Statist form than this clip of a Chinese small truck undergoing a 40 mpg front-end crash test. It's just 33 seconds long, so do click it (and excuse the oddly constructed note at the end).


This is undeniable evidence of what happens when production is put into the hands of a Statist government. China's government certainly had access to car safety technology -- it's stolen all sorts of other technology, after all -- but it willfully decided to keep the cost down in order to advance the state's goal of moving goods cheaply in order to expand the economy. (Notice how the goods being carried probably suffered little ill effect -- something that can't be said of the human occupants?)

In America a few years ago, Ford Explorers began to roll over because Ford was recommending too low a tire pressure in order to offset the top-heavy nature of the Explorer's design. Compared to the Chinese truck, this was a less willful act -- executives didn't foresee deaths, but almost 300 died and 700 were injured. (That stat has to be compared to the 12,000 SUV rollover deaths and injuries in other SUVs before any blame can be ascribed specifically to Ford's Explorer team.)

As a result of this, Ford was targeted for lawsuits and the Explorer fell from its perch as the #1 selling SUV to near oblivion.

No stats are available for deaths in the Chinese truck, but obviously if it had been as popular in the US as the Explorer was, and was operated at US highway speeds, its death count would have been spectacularly morbid. But what choice do the citizens of Statist China have? The nation manufactures all their automotive options (and the others are just as bad; see clips here, here, here, here.) And Chinese citizens certainly can't sue their government.

China's Statist mindset was also evident in the recent earthquake, where the collapse of schools and possible collapse of dams is more evidence that the state was more interested in taking care of its business than it was in taking care of its people.

Contrast that to Individualist America. When earthquakes hit or tornadoes threaten, where are we told to evacuate to? Schools. To us, protecting the next generation is our tantamount goal. To China, it is merely to educate them. (We could use a bit more emphasis on education, however ...)

Last week, we helped one of our water district clients win regulatory approval of a 266-million-gallon earth dam reservoir just up-valley from a high school. There wasn't a peep of protest, despite an extensive outreach campaign to inform the public. Why? Because people here have cause to trust our dam construction techniques and our government's watchful control. Why? Because they don't have any experience with dam collapses, since collapses are so rare.

Do you think the Chinese government would have carried out an outreach campaign? Would they give the Chinese people a voice in the decision-making, or would they just slap a shoddy dam wherever they wanted? The weak, threatening dams throughout the earthquake zone give us our answer.

One last example. When the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant failed, thanks to our Individualist state's reams of regulations designed to protect the public no matter the expense, no one was injured. Some radioactive gas was released; it dissipated; that was it.

In Statist Russia, where nuclear power plant technology was developed to speed production of power to feed Soviet industry, not to protect the Soviet citizens, when a failure hit the Chernobyl plant, there weren't the same safeguards:

All the Chernobyl reactors were of a design that the Russians call the RBMK--natural uranium-fueled, water-cooled, graphite-moderated--a design that American physicist and Nobel laureate Hans Bethe has called "fundamentally faulty, having a built-in instability." Because of the instability, an RBMK reactor that loses its coolant can under certain circumstances increase in reactivity and run progressively faster and hotter rather than shut itself down. Nor were the Chernobyl reactors protected by containment structures like those required for U.S. reactors, though they were shielded with heavy concrete covers. ...

No commercial reactor in the United States is designed anything like the RBMK reactor. Cohen summarizes several of the differences:

1. A reactor which is unstable against a loss of water could not be licensed in the United States.

2. A reactor which is unstable against a temperature increase could not be licensed here.

3. A large power reactor without a containment [structure] could not be licensed here. (source)

Such is the nature of radiation that we will never really know how many people were killed by the Soviet Statists. In 2006, the World Health Organization estimated up to 9,000 people died or will die of cancer because of the incident. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, an agency governed by the WHO and 16 member nations, published an estimate of 6,700 to 38,000 in a peer-reviewed journal. Greenpeace came up with 93,000 to 200,000, an overestimation typical of environmental hysteria cultists. (source)

But what of America's nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere over Nevada and Utah -- were we behaving as a Statist nation? There were obvious strains of Statism in the decision to test bombs there, driven by heightened Statism that occurs during times of external threats to the nation. But there were also two arguments countering Statism in the testing: First, the nation picked the most remote, unpopulated part of the nation for the test, which reflects concern for the individual, and second, we didn't really know what we were messing with -- unlike the Soviets who made a willful decision in the design of Chernobyl.

I could go on: Katrina vs. Myanmar, hot weather deaths in Paris vs. St. Louis, or the poor Chinese school kids who died when the fireworks they were required by the state to manufacture during school exploded. But the case has been made. Putting the government first is bad for the health, welfare and happiness of the people.

And yet, there are factions in the US -- let's call them Democrats -- who want to give more power to the state. They want the state in control of education, health care, what we eat (fat bans in Dem stronghold of NYC), what we hear (the renewed Fairness Doctrine debate), how marriage is to be defined.

Despite myriad examples of what happens when power is taken away from the people, they press on towards greater and greater collectivism. And they're winning. The zenith of conservatism -- the Individualist state -- in the modern era was reached in either the 50s or the 80s depending on your perspective. Since then, America has been sliding over our protests towards collectivist Statism.

There will be no improvement in the short term since all three remaining presidential candidates (Is Hillary still remaining? I haven't checked in the last hour.) are all more Statist than Individualist, and Congress should be firmly in the control of the Statists for at least one more election cycle. I'm a believer in pendulum swings, and I trust America will come up with another Reagan at some point ... but the question is, how much irreversible damage will be done before that occurs?

That Dreaded Bush Is Turning Off The World -- Not

Italians appear to not be so turned off by George Bush that they're rejecting conservatism:

ROME (WSJ) -- Conservative leader Silvio Berlusconi appeared to clinch Italy's national election Monday, making it likely that the media mogul will return as prime minister for a third time.

Mr. Berlusconi's center-right Freedom People party was set to get 164 seats in the upper house of parliament, the senate, while the Democratic Party of center-left rival Walter Veltroni was expected to win 139 seats, early projections showed.

In other words, the Bush-like conservatives dominated and the Reid-Pelosi, Obama-Clinton types got seriously hosed.

Before you say there's no comparison, let me humbly point out that there most certainly is. In Italy, the main issue was the economy, as it is here. Berlusconi's Freedom Party supports tax cuts and spending cuts. The Democratic Party supports ... well, you guess what they support.

It seems like sensible Europeans want to be more like America, while nonsensical Americans want to be more like Europe.

New Media And America's Most Influential Conservatives

I quibble with some of the Telegraph's selections of the 20 most influential conservatives in America, but from their viewpoint across the pond, they did a pretty good job.

Quibbles: Are Giuliani (#1) and McCain (#9) really seen by conservatives as conservatives? And where is George Bush? Many of his picks and inner circle are on the list (Petraeus, #2, Cheney, #6, Gates, #7, Roberts, #8, Rice, #12, Bolton, #13, Gillespie, #20), but W is nowhere to be seen.

What's particularly interesting about the list is what it says about the media. The old media is nearly nonexistent on the list; only Paul Gigot, the editorial page editor of WSJ, makes the list, coming in at #14. The Telegraph's list of most influential liberals in America doubles that count, with Michael Moore (#7) and Oprah Winfrey (#9), but I think they're undercounting. At a minimum, Don Hewitt, the producer of 60 Minutes, should be on the list, as should Andrew Rosenthal, who chairs the editorial board at the NYT.

New media grab a full 20 percent of the Telegraph's most influential list, starting with Matt Drudge at #3 and running through Rush, #5, Laura Ingraham, #15, and Glen Beck, #18. On the liberal side, I my top 20 list would include Kos and the Blades/Boyd team at MoveOn.org, but no others. The Telegraph puts Kos at #12 and B/B at #20, but adds Ariana Huffington at #16.

Most interesting pick: Arnold Schwarzenegger as the eighth most influential liberal -- actually a very astute pick. He wouldn't be California's governor if he weren't a liberal. One has to wonder if there's room for the classic old liberal Republican now days, or whether the RINO label has made the position unmarketable.

Biggest burn: Elizabeth Edwards made the most lib list at #19, but her hubby didn't break into the top 20.

Best discussion generator: Rudy as the #1 most influential conservative in America. The biggest drag on his campaign is his liberal positions on social issues -- but that doesn't seem to discount him under the British definition of conservative.

Hat-tip: memeorandum

Why The Left Calls Us Hate-Mongers

Driving back the San Jose airport this afternoon, I heard a somewhat confused 82 year-old caller accuse Michael Medved of "Hate, hate, hate! Everything you say is hate!"

I've listened to Medved for years and can't recall him ever spewing hate, but I wasn't confused one whit. I recall when my mother and I both read the same column by a Christian talk show host; I found it thoughtful and illuminating, she found it a repulsive screed of hate. Same words, same genes, different politics.

Part of the cause of this is the Left's reliance on emotions to fuel their thoughts, since secularism deprives most of them of a more solid inner compass. They hold their beliefs emotionally -- war is bad, giving the rich man's money to the poor is good -- so when their precepts are attacked, they respond emotionally.

Writer Andrew Klavan of The City lays out another reason:

This is leftism’s great strength: it’s all white lies. That’s its only advantage, as far as I can tell. None of its programs actually works, after all. From statism and income redistribution to liberalized criminal laws and multiculturalism, from its assault on religion to its redefinition of family, leftist policies have made the common life worse wherever they’re installed.

But because it depends on—indeed is defined by—describing the human condition inaccurately, leftism is nothing if not polite. With its tortuous attempts to rename unpleasant facts out of existence—he’s not crippled, dear, he’s handicapped; it’s not a slum, it’s an inner city; it’s not surrender, it’s redeployment—leftism has outlived its own failure by hiding itself within the most labyrinthine construct of social delicacy since Victoria was queen. ...

And because we’ve allowed leftists to define the language of political good manners—don’t say women are less scientific; don’t remark that black people bear the same responsibility for their actions as whites; don’t point out that the gunman was a Muslim, it’s not nice—the sort of person willing to speak the truth isn’t always the sort of person you want to be seen with.

I've certainly let untruths and mischaracterizations fly unchallenged at various social events with my family out of fear of disrupting the polite social equillibrium. The politician or talk radio host who beats down every leftist logic softball breaks the calm, and because breaking the calm is not loving (have you ever noticed how whisper-quiet leftists mellowly talk?), he who dares to challenge is seen as hateful.

Of course it's not hate; it's truth, and truth cannot be hate.

Caveat: None of this applies to the crazy Left, the faction that relishes opportunities to shout profanities and offend those who don't share their beliefs through their T-shirts, bumper stickers, puppets and group chants.

Counter-caveat: When not in their packs, these leftyloons usally speak in those quiet, thoughtful tones and take great offence at the truth spoken by conservatives.

hat-tip: Real Clear Politics

A Unified Front Against Coulter

How would you like to have these guys united against you?

Sean Hackbarth, The American Mind
James Joyner, Outside the Beltway
Scott Schmidt, Boi From Troy
Joy McCann, Little Miss Attila
Kevin McCullough, Musclehead Revolution
Fausta Werz, Fausta's blog
Patrick Hynes, Ankle Biting Pundits
Ed Morrissey, Captain's Quarters

Owen Robinson, Boots and Sabres
N.Z. Bear, The Truth Laid Bear
Michael Demmons, Gay Orbit

By now, you probably know they all issued a politely worded and compelling letter this morning asking the American Conservative Union and the sponsors of last week's CPAC to stop extending speaking invitations to Ann Coulter. Her reference to John Edwards as a "faggot," following last year's reference to Muslims as "ragheads" is the genesis of the request.

It's worth noting that the signatures of many prominent bloggers, including PowerLine, Michelle Malkin and Hugh Hewitt, are all missing from the letter -- but not the controversy.

Power Line's reference was passing:

The other big news from the meeting was the deplorable word Ann Coulter used in attempting to make a joke about John Edwards. Always the huckster, Edwards is trying to use the remark to raise money. But Edwards is the guy who wouldn't fire a blogger on his campaign staff who attacked Catholicism.

Malkin digs in with a serious protest:

Her "faggot" joke was not just a distraction from all the good that was highlighted and represented at the conference. It was the equivalent of a rhetorical fragging--an intentionally-tossed verbal grenade that exploded in her own fellow ideological soldiers' tent.

There are countless conservatives who bring their children to CPAC. ... We expect CPAC to be a place where conservative role models speak with clarity, passion, and integrity. There are enough spewers of mindless filth, vulgarity, and hatred on TV, at the movies, and in the public schools. We don't expect our children to be exposed to that garbage at the nation's preeminent conservative gathering.

I was in the back of the ballroom and did not see any children in the audience during Coulter's speech. But what if there had been?

Would you want your children hearing the word "faggot" spoken in such a casual and senseless manner? Would you like your first-grader or three-year-old running around the halls of CPAC singing "faggot, faggot, faggot?" Not me. Not anymore than I'd like my toddler singing "gook, gook, gook" or "sambo, sambo, sambo"--favored epithets hurled at conservative minorities by leftist haters groping around in their empty intellectual quivers. There were hundreds of young conservative college students in the ballroom. Would you be proud of your college-age daughter spewing such epithets in her campus debates with leftists?

With a single word, Coulter sullied the hard work of hundreds of CPAC participants and exhibitors and tarred the collective reputation of thousands of CPAC attendees.

Hugh called for an all-out Coulter ban, going beyond CPAC:

Ann Coulter is a political comedian who, like Michael Moore, often offends, and sometimes crosses the bounds of decency.

Yesterday she entered the territory where Michael Richards went when he employed the n-word to abuse a heckler. When Coulter employed the f-word to abuse a candidate, she made herself radioactive because the word is a simply invitation to hate. It was repulsive.

I cannot imagine Coulter being invited to any panel or television appearance on which I would want to appear. Colleges and universities must also stop inviting her to appear as a representative of the conservative movement in America. She is not. You want smart, accomplished and funny conservative women? Ask K-Lo, Laura Ingraham or Carol Liebau to appear, or chose from scores of others. But not Ann Coulter --she represents only a snarl and a deep need to be noticed.

With each of these outbursts of the outrageous, does Coulter expand or contract her audience? For a while, it worked for her, but the trouble with relying on outrage is that it's an escalating game. Re-using last year's outrage curries little favor with those who like such things.

So she's left with using the word "faggot." One wonders what level of condemnation she would have received if she had called Edwards "gay;" probably less, perhaps none. But that's not the point; it's the combination of ad hominem attack and disgraced word that Coulter chose for her speech and both are below the ideals of the conservative movement.

It's also below the ideals of Christianity -- something she should think about as the author of Godless.

Perhaps the right is hankering for an obscene blog to go up against the potty-mouth lefties. If so, Coulter's found her calling, much to the detriment of America.