Before I examine certain professed principles of Conservatism, I would like to add a post script to the previous blog, Embryonic Stem Cell Research. It is about the Roman Catholic Church, with whose faith I have no civic dispute. However, I do dispute their moral authority which they assume when they express the value of human life—the sacredness of young life, as they term it.
To me, the Roman Catholic Church in general, and the priesthood in particular, lost their moral authority when Catholic priests and bishops sexually abused children, while the Roman Catholic hierarchy not only covered up the abuse, but kept the guilty priests and bishops in positions of authority over children. Although I believe in forgiveness, I simply cannot accept any pronouncements from people who have not yet proven to me that they practice what they preach. Until they do, I will exercise my citizen’s right to ignore their hypocritical dicta.
The Church’s failing to protect the children under its care is only one example of Conservatives’ ignoring the gap between their professions of belief and the actions they take. A more recent example of this pragmatic gap was seen when Michael Steele, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, was recently interviewed by GQ (see GQ’s website). In the interview Steele remarked that abortion was an "individual choice" and gay-marriage decisions should rest with the states. However, at no time did Steele endorse gay marriage or abortion, and if you read the complete interview he comes across as a dyed-in-the-wool Conservative Republican. He declared himself to be "pro-life."
Nevertheless, Steele’s statements upset many party leaders. As reported by NPR, former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, one of Steele's rivals for the RNC chair, told the conservative Web site, www.Townhall.com. on Thursday that Steele needs to "re-read the Bible, the U.S. Constitution, and the 2008 GOP platform."
So, who is the real Conservative? What, in fact, do real Conservatives stand for? To get the answers, I visited three Conservative websites. This essay is about the highly respected Cato Institute*. This organization states its mission as follows: "The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace."
The institute also says, " … ‘liberal’ may well be the perfect word in most of the world—the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina are supporters of human rights and free markets—but its meaning has clearly been corrupted by contemporary American liberals."
The Cato Institute believes that liberals in other lands are uncorrupted supporters of human rights and free markets, and it believes that if free market capitalism exists in a country, so do human rights. Unfortunately, for people in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), capitalism has never guaranteed human rights.
James A. Dorn, China specialist and vice president of academic affairs at the Cato Institute, agrees. Partly. In the institute’s Policy Analysis No. 553 (November 2, 2005), he wrote, "Although it is proper to criticize China for its human rights violations and its lack of a transparent legal system, we should not ignore the substantial progress China has made since it embarked on economic liberalization in 1978. … To avert the risk of conflict, the United States needs to treat China as a normal great power, not as an adversary; ensure that only those commercial transactions that genuinely threaten national security are blocked; and recognize that by increasing economic freedom we increase personal freedom. Our economic security, as well as China’s, will depend on sound free-market policies, not on destructive protectionism."
To the Cato Institute trade with PRC and free markets are more important than "… human rights, individual liberty and peace." PRC, which has been a member of the WTO since 2001, also believes in free markets, but not individual liberty and human rights. I am disappointed that Mr. Dorn ignores PRC’s prison systems. They are called Laogai and are filled with rapists, thieves, and corrupt politicians. However, this system includes the Laojiao, which is a form of administrative rather than judicial detention, where dissidents, petty criminals, and vagrants can be imprisoned for several years without a trial or any other legal proceedings. For more information on this system go to www.laogai.org.
Mr. Harry Wu, the Executive Director of the Laogai Research Foundation, testified before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission hearing on "The Memorandum of Understanding Between the United States and China Regarding Prison Labor Products" on June 19, 2008. He reported that, despite the US law forbidding the importation of products made by forced prison labor, many of those products have made their way into American markets. In fact 314 laojiao camps are listed by Dun and Bradstreet, the prestigious credit reporting company that gathers information on businesses throughout the world, enabling companies to check on one another before conducting transactions requiring one company to extend credit to the other. Mr. Wu also reported, "The 314 entries for Laogai camps found in the D&B databases represent 72 different products (specific) and/or product categories (broad)."
Laogai is translated to "reform through labor," and laojiao means "reeducation through labor." Together those names sound a frightening echo of Nazi Germany’s motto for their concentration camps, Arbeit macht Frei, or "Work makes you free." All this leads me, sadly, to conclude that it has been the Cato Institute, not contemporary Americans, that have corrupted the word "liberal."
The institute goes on to say, "The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work has increasingly come to be called ‘libertarianism’ or ‘market liberalism.’ Many Conservatives, as well as conservative organizations, hold Thomas Jefferson as an exemplar of conservative values, even though many of his actions belied his professed beliefs. Historian Joseph J. Ellis, in American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson (1996), described the problems Jefferson encountered when his philosophy in action actually seriously damaged the American economy. Ellis points out that Jefferson believed in fiscal austerity, so much that he tried to dry-dock or destroy America’s navy, which had been developed by his predecessor, John Adams. Unfortunately, that interfered with his need to protect American commercial ships which were being captured by British and French frigates. So, to get back at the Europeans, whom Jefferson saw as corrupt and belligerent, he got Congress to pass the Embargo Act of 1807. This closed all American ports to foreign trade and thus violated two of the Cato Institute’s principles. First, it removed the United States from the free market (emphasis mine). Second, as Ellis tell us, " … [it] required the federal government to exercise coercive powers to enforce the embargo, thereby contradicting the Jeffersonian principle of limited government" (Emphasis mine).
We should also remember that despite his expressed antagonism to the institution of slavery, Jefferson owned at one time more than 200 slaves, and at his death most of his slaves were sold off to pay for his estate’s enormous debts. During his lifetime he practiced the tradition of Southern plantation owners and fathered several children by slavewomen that he owned. This is the face of his writing "… the amalgamation of whites with blacks produces a degradation to which no lover of his country, no lover of excellence in the human character, can innocently consent.". I know of no Liberal worthy of the name who agrees with Jefferson. I hope no Conservative does.
The Cato Institute also "… combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism." At this time America’s market process is an invalid, queasy with greed, crippled by immorality, and in extremis brought on by inaccurate prognoses of vigor and long life. Its corporations pay few if any taxes even when they file a return.
They are skeptical about the benefits of the welfare state, but they have not developed any serious opposition to the corporate welfare that may bring our free enterprise system off its knees. Yet, how free can our various enterprises be when businesses get income tax breaks for the losses their incomes suffer because their managers make bad business decisions and fail to detect changes in the marketplace? Where are the capitalist adventurers when they screw up? In their board rooms giving themselves congratulatory bonuses for leading their various enterprises to ruin.
So far I have found that Conservatives hold to their beliefs in the face of brute actuality. First principles are very important to them. More important than the consequences of the actions they take in the name of their beliefs.
I must point out that, although the Cato Institute’s mission statement about limited government and free markets can be argued with, its stand against foreign military adventurism stands up under examination. It has, as far as I can discover, never supported the invasion of Iraq. In fact it has held many conferences to find a way out for the US armed forces.
___________________________________________
* I will write about The American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation in my next blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment