Oakeshott and Liberal Fascism

When I first read Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism I was struck by how it fleshed out many of the concepts addressed in the works of Michael Oakeshott.  Goldberg provided concrete, historical examples for Oakeshott’s spare, philosophical treatment.

http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1318535787&sr=1-1

But in subsequent reading I’ve come across items in Oakeshott’s essays that would’ve fit neatly into Liberal Fascism.  For example in his review of Walter Lippman’s Public Philosophy we find this:

“The large manner in which liberal democrats have talked about freedom of speech has got them into trouble: this is the door through which Jacobin tyranny has entered.  But, says Mr. Lippman, freedom of speech properly understood would offer no entrance for Jacobinism.  And properly understood it belongs to the corpus of liberal-democratic rights as ‘a method of attaining moral and political truth’.  Its counterpart is the obligation to be a bona fide participant in a debate whose object is to elicit ‘truth’.  To absolve oneself from this obligation is to surrender the right of freedom of speech [my emphasis].

This seems to me a great error.  And so far from hindering the appearance of the heresy of Jacobinism, it is itself a Jacobin theory.  For wherever, in modern times, free speech has been suppressed, it has always been because ‘truth’ is believed to have been attained, and what is suppressed is recognized as mere error….”

After some further explication, Oakeshott states:

“But why in fact do we cherish the right to speak freely?  Because we have become a people with a variety of opinions about all sorts of matters and we do not see why we should not utter them.  We know that that there are limits to this right, but we know also that these limits have nothing whatever to do with ‘truth’ and ‘error’, but only with peace and tranquility.  The proper rationale of free speech, and the limits commonly imposed upon it by liberal-democratic governments, is not the belief that every utterance is a bona fide participation in a search for some one ‘truth’, but the belief that politics are not concerned with this sort of ‘truth’ at all.  They are concerned with the cultivation of what from time to time are accepted as the peaceable decencies of conduct of men who do not suffer from the Puritan-Jacobin illusion that in practical affairs there is an attainable condition of things called ‘truth’ or ‘perfection’.  Jacobinism is politics in which ‘truth’ as opposed to ‘error’is sought and consequently in which speech  is recognized as argument and is permitted, but only until ‘truth’ appears.”

Michael Oakeshott, Religion, Politics, and the Moral Life, The Customer is Never Wrong, pages (115 – 116)

Robert Jeffress and the no religious test clause

Over at Commentary Peter Wehner has added to his earlier criticism of Robert Jeffress by bringing out Article 6, Clause 3 of the Constitution: “but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”  Jeffress’ moment of fame came about by introducing Governor Perry and then declaring Mormonism a cult and stating that this should be a key factor in voting against Romney.

I have no opinion on whether Mormonism is a cult but believe that the idea that Romney’s faith should be a key political factor in this campaign is absurd.  However, bringing in the religious test clause is a serious reach.  It doesn’t follow from the test clause that religious belief can’t be a factor in evaluating candidates by a voter.  This is similar to the idiots who make a controversial remark, get fired or lose an endorsement or are boycotted and then complain that their 1^st Amendment rights have been violated.  In both cases, what is being prohibited is an action by the government not the actions of individuals.

The categorical nature of Wehner’s argument is a bit odd given current times, when the United States is currently fighting radical Islamists in multiple theatres.  That doesn’t mean that Muslims should be kept out of office, but it is silly to suggest that the founders preclude voters taking religion into account if they were offered a candidate who espoused religious beliefs similar to those emanating from Iran.  Jeffress’ comments were stupid and will soon be forgotten, but the religious test clause doesn’t enter into it.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/10/12/no-religious-test-clause-constitution/

Nobel Prize to Thomas Sargent

I’ve been familiar with Thomas Sargent--at least his reputation--since he taught at the Univ. of Minnesota.  Sargent who along with Robert Lucas was a leader of the rational expectations school of economics has now won the Nobel Prize.  That school of economics can be summarized as the belief that “policymakers can’t manipulate the economy by systematically tricking’ people with policy surprises.”  No surprise then to see that Sargent wasn’t a fan of the stimulus program. http://www.nysun.com/national/new-nobel-laureat-warned-against-stimulus-package/87512

Keeping in mind the rational expectations view consider the current economic situation and the Obama economic program:

Ø      Wealthy defined as $250K per year in income, above that is money you don’t need.

Ø      Calls for dramatically increasing taxes on “the rich.”

Ø      Extremely high debt levels with no signs that it will be dealt with by decreasing spending.  Proposed spending cuts when offered have all been pushed into the out years.

If Thomas Sargent’s work has any validity why would a person with money risk it investing in startups and the like?  As it currently stands a rational view of the future includes singly or in some combination: a) much higher taxes on wealth b) inflation c) severe fiscal stress.   

Winston's turn of phrase

Over on the Powerline blog Steven Hayward has a post warning Obama about class warfare via a warning from Winston Churchill to FDR on the subject. Beyond the basic point what stands out is the writing.  Not least how Winston brings it to a close:

"To hunt wealth is not to capture commonwealth."

The entire--pretty short-- post is here: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/10/winstons-warning-for-obama.php

The baseball closer

The recently concluded Yankees vs Tigers playoff series suggests some of the difficulties which I tried to address in the prior post.  Compared to the regular season a five game series is ridiculously small.  NBA series are .085 of the season schedule (7/82), NFL is .063 (1/16) and the first round in baseball is .031 (5/162).  Funny to hear all the talk of what the Yankees have to do to address their problems now that they find themselves on the wrong end of what is almost surely a statistically insignificant difference.

That said, that in mind, still….still you couldn’t help but notice and ponder that the greatest closer in the game was a complete non-factor.  Mariano Rivera was healthy, and was irrelevant to the outcome (almost the opposite could be said of ARod, who if you are Yankee fan was all too relevant).  He faced one batter in game 1, and three batters in game 5; that’s it.  Doesn’t that tell us something about being a closer?  How critical can a closer be if the best is irrelevant in a playoff?

The closest parallel that I can think of is a field goal kicker in the NFL.  Games tend to be close, so it quite often comes down whether or not a kicker is successful from some distance at the end of the game.  Succeeding or failing is memorable.  But your opportunities are completely dependent on the players who are actually involved in most of the plays.  The offense has to get into field goal range (and not score a touchdown) for you to be a factor in the game and the defense has to stop the other team often enough for 3 points to matter.  Similarly, as used now, a team has to be ahead by a smallish margin at the end of the game for the closer to have any significance to the outcome, which has to lead you to believe that that significance is vastly overrated.

Mariano Rivera is the best closer of his time.  The Yankees vs Tigers series makes me wonder what that means.  It certainly should be kept in mind when talking of him as being one of the all time Yankee greats or thinking about closers as MVPs or Hall of Famers.  I don’t see how you can be considered one of the greats if you play a position that can be demonstrated to not matter.

Some thoughts on baseball/sports

The typical Michael Oakeshott essay was to define two ideal, opposite types, explore their respective attributes, show why in their pure form the two types were unsustainable, and then indicate a clear preference for one of the two types (usually the one that was currently recessive rather than dominant).  The start of the baseball playoffs and the dramatic end to the regular season along with discussions of adding another wild card team points out how useful Oakeshott’s framework is for looking at sports. 

One pole or type in sports would be the purely competitive.  Its main feature is the attempt to find the best team or individual in the competition, with its main attribute being a rather lengthy season and a more or less balanced schedule or competitive platform in order to reduce as far as possible the element of luck.  A good example of this idea is the older format in baseball where the leagues determined their champions through the regular season without any playoffs.  The major tournaments in golf which had a next day, 18 hole playoff in case of tie, is also emblematic of this type.

The other type I would call the dramatic-commercial and as the name suggests the emphasis is on drama, and excitement.  It is a reaction to the real or imagined problems inherent in the competitive model.  In the baseball scenario discussed above most of the teams would be eliminated from competition fairly early with a corresponding loss in fan interest.  More teams making the playoffs means more fans following their teams through the entire season.  A sudden death playoff in golf means a winner will be determined on Sunday along with the inherent drama of one hole deciding everything.  The NBA’s rule that allows a team to call a timeout and advance the ball past mid-court is rules example of the dramatic-commercial (a rule which makes no sense from a pure competition standpoint).  When A’s general manager Billy Beane described the baseball playoffs as “a crapshoot” he was drawing a contrast between the competitive and dramatic-commercial types in baseball.

From the above perspective, it is easy to see general sports discussions like a playoff system in college football or an additional wild card team in baseball as attempts at finding the right balance between competition and drama.  And as sports has become more and more driven by television and commercial considerations it shouldn’t surprise that most of the changes have been in the direction of adding excitement, drama, fan involvement to sports at the expense of its competitive elements.

Addendum: at NRO this post touches on the same subject : http://www.nationalreview.com/right-field/279579/it-really-just-about-money-michael-potemra

Occupy Wall Street - Demands

I haven't been paying any attention to Occupy Wall Street except for Iowahawk's twitter comments.  But I noted that Fox Special Report tonight Juan Williams likened it to the Tea Party and a clip had former Obama admin. official Van Jones cheerleading for the protests.

So this list of demands from one of the protesters is interesting (yes, it's unfair to draw conclusions from one person). http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/279011/oh-all-daniel-foster  Of the thirteen demands I think this is my favorite:

"Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the “Books.” World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the “Books.” And I don’t mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period."

The shorter version of this demand is no financial system.

Then there is "demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment" which might be tough to institute after you've destroyed the financial system and has the other problem of running into
"demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live."

Wrapping up our author concludes with "these demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy." 

The only thing I can add is that when you post something like this you should have to state where received your education,to provide the public with a suitable warning.