Library of Congress


I’m developing this idea, but I wanted to post a rough sketch on here regardless. I think consent as a tool against political institutions could not be more useless or irrelevant.

Locke structured his defense of a limited, liberal government on the basis of consent (Sections 87 to 89 prove relevant). Without consent, Locke cannot move individuals out of the state of nature and cannot justify the establishment of a commonwealth.

Lysander Spooner dismissed Locke’s telling because he saw tacit consent and the social contract as ridiculous (and rightly so) and without binding power (No Treason, NT.6.2.10). David Hume compares the social contract to impression, and John Stuart Mill sees it as a useless rhetorical tool for elucidating social obligations, preferring to interpret the matter as one of paying for the benefits an individual receives in society (paragraph three).

Anyway. Mill approaches my thoughts closest, as he doesn’t codify consent as important. Spooner’s argument is that no legitimate government exists unless citizens express their consent to it (correct me if I’m wrong), and I don’t know the extent of Hume’s arguments on social contract and consent in general. While consent in personal interactions remains of vast importance, it doesn’t provide insight to legitimate structures on an institutional level.

Extending the argument of consent outside of what libertarians normally extend it, I think my point clearly emerges. Consent isn’t relevant for political institutions because libertarians deny its relevance when discussing economic and social institutions. If an individuals claims that he or she doesn’t consent to capitalism or the Puritan society in which he or she dwells as a fact of birth and other practical restrictions, such claims usually get dismissed by libertarians. It becomes a sort of “America: Love it or leave it” sentiment akin to what libertarians hear from neoconservatives when discussing political institutions. We do not consent to birth, we do not consent to living under capitalism or socialism, and we do not consent to living in American society or Czech society or Australian society.

That fact doesn’t mean that society, polity, or economy should accommodate those individuals; indeed, I think it elucidates my point that basing institutions on consent isn’t practicable or terribly useful as a tool to determine their legitimacy.

Low costs to exit a polity, society, or economy reduces the impracticality, but it doesn’t get at the principle.

I’m still unsure as to what should be used to determine the legitimacy of institutions, but consent in general appears unworkable to me; I see too many gaps with it on a level beyond individuals. John Hasnas’ Depoliticization of Law offers a possible solution (or, at least, a better rationale) when he discusses depoliticized law, wherein he means the use of a rule of law defined as

The idea of a government of general, neutral, and equally applied rules suggests a system in which no one is subject to any other human will; one in which men do not rule over men, but all are governed by intelligible, impersonal rules that do not elevate the interests of any citizen or group of citizens over those of others.

or, more simply, a government of laws, not men. How such a principle could be translated to the economy lies in emergent order coupled with a rule of law that aims to protect property rights, and in society, a rule of law rooted in the defense of the individual and the minority against the collective and the majority.

I’m not sure whether that’s clear or lacks convincing logic, but these are more musings than anything. It only appears that consent isn’t the most useful tool, especially as I think it’s obvious that if libertarians reject tacit consent in the political realm, they must reject it in the economic and social realm as well.

Ideas?

What’s offensive is their derogatory and unfair approach when we discuss anything.

As much as my leftist friends disparage conservatives for theocracy, they’re the ones primarily slinging sin on individuals who disagree with their worldview.

They’ve crafted such a pure, intuitive, logical, and reasonable political philosophy that the only way to oppose them lies in denying your faculties. It isn’t that you’re wrong, it’s that you refuse to adhere to reason and be right; in a sense, you’re sinning or mentally defective.

I don’t mean to say that all leftists assume such pomposity or that libertarians somehow persevere against the attractive intellectual echo chamber; it’s simply been in my viewing from leftists the past week.

A democratic socialist friend whom I respect and love discussing ideas with:

Ron Paul is such a scum bag. Why are supposed “leftists” supporting this guy?

Well, probably because, as Glenn Greenwald succinctly puts it in article afterarticle after article after article after article after article, he’s more progressive than Obama or any other Democrats. I don’t constantly post about Ron Paul nor do I desire to do so [Nor, for that matter, do I endorse him]. However, any honest leftist must prefer him by leaps and bounds to any other presidential candidate in the field regardless of political affiliation. When we include pragmatic factors as to what Paul could reasonably accomplish, the support can only grow, as it is precisely the areas of foreign policy and civil liberties where he could enact change and would be limited in affecting large economic changes; it’s a leftist’s dream of eliminating authoritarian power.

However, many don’t care because, while maligning their opponents, they remain the most ideological and most trenchant in their political opinions. Ron Paul lacks a “D” before his name, and therefore, he’s no better than the most trenchant Bad People. It’s disgustingly absurd. Principled leftists can oppose Ron Paul, but to call him a scum bag and not mention the value he brings to the political arena (something Matt Taibbi and Katrina vanden Huevel have done) betrays any sense of intellectual independence.

But to return to my main point. Other comments on that Facebook status:

Comment 1: Libertarians are a complete 360 [sic] from the spectrum. Even in foreign policy, he would allow unregulated trade which would allow companies to basically do whatever they want across the globe. Hes against antitrust. Great lets have some more cut throat monopolies.

Comment 2: His definition “liberty” includes the ability to be racist, sexist, homophobic, which appeals to alot of Americans. Civil rights are of no concern to him because he doesn’t understand systems of privilege. He is the epitome of the “colorblind” or “sexuality blind” discrimination we see so widespread and he feels like he can deal with these issues by saying fewer government interventions will just make them go away. Only deregulation is important to him. Liberty can’t be achieved in the presence of systemic privilege. The dude[']s an idiot.

Comment 3: Because they’re morons. They think that because he says everything should be left up to the states that that means he’s on their (leftists’) side. But it just gets down to this simple fact: he’s still just another rich, white male Republican. The same shit we’ve had for over 200 years.

I understand that Facebook rarely serves as a legitimate forum for great discussion, but the comments reveal a complete and utter lack of understanding of Paul’s (and libertarians in general) political beliefs, an unwillingness to address them, and the Marxist tendency to dismiss individuals who disagree because they’re trapped in their bourgeois perspective and cannot break from that (unlike the enlightened Marxists, able to overcome all and see the Truth). If you’re rich, white, male, a non-leftist, racist, sexist, or homophobic, the only necessity to defeat your argument is to label you as such. It brings to mind Orwell’s beautiful essays What is Fascism? and Politics and the English Language. Fascist became (and remains) a swearword used to malign anyone who dared dissent from your beliefs. Similarly, language becomes corrupt for the benefit of the speaker: “The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. ” Skepticism should immediately arise whenever we hear “fair,” “greedy,” “liberty,” “freedom,” “equality,” or any other loaded term, as it’s used to garner support for the speaker’s policy solutions, and conveniently, they’re never pressed to define what they mean.

Anyway.

What I’m pontificating about seems to me the bad faith we all enter into when discussing politics. It isn’t new, and it’s definitely more pronounced in college, but now is precisely when we should be most skeptical of it. Never dismiss racists because they’re racists; dismiss them because their ideas are discredited. I’ve repeatedly referred to Gingrich as scum and Santorum in equally unflattering terms, but it’s around libertarian friends who already agree with me; on a personal level, I stand by my labeling of Gingrich as scum, but his solutions for immigration, for instance, I’ll acknowledge as good (and, by the way, much better than Paul’s). However, if I’m discussing politics with someone, I’d shun such a weak and childish remark.

This post is by no means original. Unfortunately, everyone on all sides feign support for such a post, and few follow through. Randolph Bourne did. Thomas Dewey failed. Thoreau did. Orwell admirably and miraculously did. Howard Zinn failed.

I don’t expect the majority of individuals engaged in political discourse (and, especially, voters) to take a more non-ideological stance. However, it’s disheartening to see friends blatantly do so. Opposing Ron Paul because you disagree with his economic ideas and can accurate describe then refute them are what I’d like to see. Namecalling and dismissing with a flick of the wrist a political philosophy that few understand after hearing a few empty phrases cannot be laudable and only serves to engender a political divide based on team X or team Y rather than responsive and thinking individuals.

It’s an atrocious tendency and increases my aversion to discussing politics with an opposing viewpoint because I note that they hold preconceived notions of what I think, believe, and say.

Why should I engage someone who refuses to listen, then attacks my character, not my ideas?

New post on the Young Americans for Liberty blog:

As sheep led to slaughter, so are we fools who perpetually adhere to fallacious economic dogma. In this instance, our shepherd is Robert Reich, writing in Salon, wherein he offers a supposedly innovative panacea that reveals itself as a static, predictable policy.

In other news, Students for Liberty yesterday announced 12 regional conferences through October and November across the United States. I am attending Chicago (October 1) and Pittsburgh (November 12); register today here.

If you want to despise the Bush administration (and every administration since Johnson) more than you already do, I highly recommend reading Glenn Greenwald’s How Would a Patriot Act?

Fun fact (and by fun, I mean depressing): since the creation of FISA courts in 1978 through 2001, the courts received 13,102 requests for warrants to eavesdrop on Americans. The courts approved all 13,102 requests, and modified the requested warrant on 2 occasions. 99.98% of requests were approved with no changes.

The FISA courts were to provide oversight: At least one federal judge would be aware of the eavesdropping to ensure the wiretaps were legitimate (I have doubts about the legitimacy of 99.98% of requests, but let’s ignore that).

The Bush administration began secretly wiretapping communications in October 2001, unbeknownst to anyone outside the administration.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allowed government surveillance to carry forth without intelligence agents obtaining a warrant ex ante, provided the warrant is obtained within 24 hours (Congress modified FISA in 2001 via the Patriot Act to extend that period to 72 hours) during peacetime; during wartime, that window extended to 15 calendar days.

Ignoring the fact that Bush and many in his administration lied under oath to Congress (e.g. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, in all likelihood James A. Baker, among many others), the blatant ease with which legal wiretaps are available for approval (99.98% without modification, 100% for approval), the administration’s warrantless wiretapping fails to limit itself to classification as illegitimate, but blatantly unethical and unconstitutional.

All in the name of security and freedom.

Naturally, the Obama administration perpetuates the program. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

What’s most striking, and ironic, is that the Norwegian response to the Oslo attack is so glaringly un-American even though its core premise — a brave refusal to sacrifice liberty and transparency in the name of fear and security — was once the political value Americans boasted of exhibiting most.

This is not to deride idealism as irrelevant and destructive of progress; to the contrary, idealism precipitates activism that alters society and develops a movement. When individuals constantly look toward heaven, to that ideal society, it is an invigoration of sorts which inspires action and thought.

I’ll link a recording (.mp3, 1:43:00) of Cobb’s lecture (and his Q&A, which includes a few questions from libertarians), but I’d rather address a few issues he raises, rather than a summary and analysis. Three reasons:

1)  It’s better to listen to the lecture than read a summary

2) I disagree with many of his assertions and implied policy solutions.*

3) His overall theme appeared more important than specific theses

Throughout Cobb’s lecture, one theme presented itself: De-centralization and localization of power hold paramount importance for the progression of society. No matter the perspective on corporations, American history and an ideal society, Greens/progressives/socialists (hereafter referred to as progressives for simplicity) and libertarians have stronger connections than libertarians and conservatives or libertarians and liberals. The connection isn’t universal, as many progressives will gladly advocate harnessing the political system to centrally dictate policies to achieve their goals. However, where such a connection (alliance?) exists, libertarians and progressives may mutually benefit.

What unites libertarians and progressives is a realization that the largest political divide is not the Left vs. the Right; applying a distinction from the French Revolution lacks utility. The largest political divide is along centralization and de-centralization. Arguments over what kind of society is the Good at which individuals should aim perpetuate; modifications occur of the arguments, but it is doubtful as to whether any resolution will be reached. However, with localized and dispersed power and action, individuals exert greater freedom to pursue their desired society. Any principled individual (be they progressive or libertarian) should reject any action that centralizes and expands power, whether or not the end-goal of such action attempts to foster a more progressive or libertarian society.

However, I do not wish to limit such a de-centralized connection to the political realm. Localized action emerges locally. More than anything, non-political activism involving progressives and libertarians may produce more beneficial results than any protest or ballot initiative. If it is as miniscule as monthly forums to comprehend a different perspective and engage in what the definition of the Good IS, or as considerable as a community charity or improvement project, so be it.

Living liberty may make interesting combinations. However, rejecting an occasionally awkward alignment because “their” ideal society deviates from “ours” lacks acumen when “their” desire is a different prediction from “ours.” Obviously, substantial disagreements exist and must be confronted, but I interpret centralizing conservatives and liberals as a greater threat to liberty and a free, just society than de-centralizing progressives.

*As Cobb didn’t explicitly provide policy solutions, I’d rather not presume his favored policy solutions.

1. When a policy requires reformation, we are reformers.

2. If an institution necessitates abolition, we are abolitionists.

3. If tradition or a societal structure preserves voluntary and peaceful action while promoting a free society, we are preservationists.

4. When the intellectual paradigm inhibits and harms society, we are revolutionists.

————————————————————————————————————

1. We are not bomb-throwing anarchists bent on the destruction of society (although some of us are anarchists).

2. We do not protect the status quo when it harms the liberty of individuals and we are not corporate shills (the status quo is not completely good nor completely bad, and we are pro-market, not pro-business).

3. We do not want only a market to guide societal interaction and individual motivation (some of us reject property altogether).

4. We are not selfish, callous and neglectful of others (we recognize that impoverished individuals and minority groups have been harmed more by the State than anyone else).

————————————————————————————————————-

1. We understand that virtue and equality only develop when they are rooted in liberty. Our actions speak louder than empty promises of those in power, and we reject the political system as an acceptable means to dictate our desired ends.

2. We understand that individual and community empowerment fulfill desires and resolve issues better than any centralized approach. If an idea cannot persuade voluntary adoption and relies on coercion for its implementation, it is not a good idea.

3. If we fail to defend voluntary and peaceful actions of individuals and collectives with whom we disagree, we restrict our own liberty. Liberty cannot be severed into an economic and personal realm, as such a notion denies its indivisibility and allows individuals to control other individuals.

4. Our tenets are those of voluntary action and decentralization of power. We cannot help an individual who rejects our help, no matter how strongly our morals compel us to try, and we comprehend that no individual can be entrusted to wisely exert unlimited power over others.

Glenn Greenwald has a wonderful post from May 2010 concerning opinions labeled “crazy” and subsequently marginalized in political circles. A good summary of Ron Paul’s opinions and quirks, but more importantly, an analysis on why “intense, fixated mockery of marginalized, powerless people has the benefit of distracting attention from the actions of those who are actually in power. “

One of the favorite self-affirming pastimes of establishment Democratic and Republican pundits is to mock anyone and everyone outside of the two-party mainstream as crazy, sick lunatics.  That serves to bolster the two political parties as the sole arbiters of what is acceptable:  anyone who meaningfully deviates from their orthodoxies are, by definition, fringe, crazy losers.  Ron Paul is one of those most frequently smeared in that fashion, and even someone like Howard Dean, during those times when he stepped outside of mainstream orthodoxy, was similarly smeared as literally insane, and still is.

Last night, the crazy, hateful, fringe lunatic Ron Paul voted to repeal the Clinton-era Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy (or, more accurately, he voted to allow the Pentagon to repeal it if and when it chooses to) – while 26 normal, sane, upstanding, mainstream House Democrats voted to retain that bigoted policy.  Paul explained today that he changed his mind on DADT because gay constituents of his who were forced out of the military convinced him of the policy’s wrongness — how insane and evil he is!

In 2003, the crank lunatic-monster Ron Paul vehemently opposed the invasion of Iraq, while countless sane, normal, upstanding, good-hearted Democrats — including the current Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Senate Majority Leader, House Majority Leader, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, and many of the progressivepundits who love to scorn Ron Paul as insane — supported the monstrous attack on that country.

In 2008, the sicko Ron Paul opposed the legalization of Bush’s warrantless eavesdropping program and the granting of retroactive immunity to lawbreaking telecoms, while the DemocraticCongress — led by the current U.S. President, his Chief of Staff, the Senate Majority Leader, the Speaker of the House, and the House Majority Leader — overwhelmingly voted it into law.  Paul, who apparently belongs in a mental hospital, vehemently condemned America’s use of torture from the start, while many leading Democrats were silent (or even supportive), and mainstream, sane Progressive Newsweek and MSNBC pundit Jonathan Alter was explicitly calling for its use.  Compare Paul’s February, 2010 emphatic condemnation of America’s denial of habeas corpus, lawless detentions and presidential assassinations of U.S. citizens to what the current U.S. Government is doing.

The crazed monster Ron Paul also opposes the war in Afghanistan, while the Democratic Congress continues to fund it and even to reject timetables for withdrawal.  Paul is an outspoken opponent of the nation’s insane, devastating and oppressive “drug war” — that imprisons hundreds of thousands of Americans with a vastly disparate racial impact and continuously incinerates both billions of dollars and an array of basic liberties — while virtually no Democrat dares speak against it.  Paul crusades against limitless corporate control of government and extreme Federal Reserve secrecy, while the current administration works to preserve it.  He was warning of the collapsing dollar and housing bubble at a time when our Nation’s Bipartisan Cast of Geniuses were oblivious.  In sum, behold the embodiment of clinical, certifiable insanity:  anti-DADT, anti-Iraq-war, anti-illegal-domestic-surveillance, anti-drug-war, anti-secrecy, anti-corporatism, anti-telecom-immunity, anti-war-in-Afghanistan.

There’s no question that Ron Paul holds some views that are wrong, irrational and even odious.  But that’s true for just about every single politician in both major political parties (just look at the condition of the U.S. if you doubt that; and note how Ron Paul’s anti-abortion views render him an Untouchable for progressives while Harry Reid’s anti-abortion views permit him to be a Progressive hero and even Senate Majority Leader).  My point isn’t that Ron Paul is not crazy; it’s that those who self-righteously apply that label to him and to others invariably embrace positions and support politicians at least as “crazy.”  Indeed, those who support countless insane policies and/or who support politicians in their own party who do — from the Iraq War to the Drug War, from warrantless eavesdropping and denial of habeas corpus to presidential assassinations and endless war in the Muslim world — love to spit the “crazy” label at anyone who falls outside of the two-party establishment.

* * * * *

This behavior is partially driven by the adolescent/high-school version of authoritarianism (anyone who deviates from the popular cliques — standard Democrats and Republicans — is a fringe loser who must be castigated by all those who wish to be perceived as normal), and is partially driven by the desire to preserve the power of the two political parties to monopolize all political debates and define the exclusive venues for Sanity and Mainstream Acceptability.  But regardless of what drives this behavior, it’s irrational and nonsensical in the extreme.

I’ve been writing for several years about this destructive dynamic:   whereby people who embrace clearly crazy ideas and crazy politicians anoint themselves the Arbiters of Sanity simply because they’re good mainstream Democrats and Republicans and because the objects of their scorn are not.  For me, the issue has nothing to do with Ron Paul and everything to do with how the “crazy” smear is defined and applied as a weapon in our political culture.  Perhaps the clearest and most harmful example was the way in which the anti-war view was marginalized, even suppressed, in the run-up to the attack on Iraq because the leadership of both parties supported the war, and the anti-war position was thus inherently the province of the Crazies.  That’s what happens to any views not endorsed by either of the two parties.

Last week in Newsweek, in the wake of the national fixation on Rand Paul, Conor Friedersdorf wrote a superb article on this phenomenon.  While acknowledging that Rand Paul’s questioning of the Civil Rights Act (and other positions Paul holds) are “wacky” and deeply wrong, Friedersdorf writes:

Forced to name the “craziest” policy favored by American politicians, I’d say the multibillion-dollar war on drugs, which no one thinks is winnable.  Asked about the most “extreme,” I’d cite the invasion of Iraq, a war of choice that has cost many billions of dollars and countless innocent lives. The “kookiest” policy is arguably farm subsidies for corn, sugar, and tobacco — products that people ought to consume less, not more. . . .

If returning to the gold standard is unthinkable, is it not just as extreme that President Obama claims an unchecked power to assassinate, without due process, any American living abroad whom he designates as an enemy combatant? Or that Joe Lieberman wants to strip Americans of their citizenship not when they are convicted of terrorist activities, but upon their being accused and designated as enemy combatants?

He goes on to note that “these disparaging descriptors are never applied to America’s policy establishment, even when it is proved ruinously wrong, whereas politicians who don’t fit the mainstream Democratic or Republican mode, such as libertarians, are mocked almost reflexively in these terms, if they are covered at all.”  Indeed, this is true of anyone who deviates at all — even in tone — from the two-party orthodoxy, as figures as disparate as Dennis Kucinich, Noam Chomsky, Howard Dean or even Alan Grayson will be happy to tell you.

* * * * *

The reason this is so significant — the reason I’m writing about it again — is because forced adherence to the two parties’ orthodoxies, forced allegiance to the two parties’ establishments, is the most potent weapon in status quo preservation.  That’s how our political debates remain suffocatingly narrow, the permanent power factions in Washington remain firmly in control, the central political orthodoxies remain largely unchallenged.  Neither party nor its loyalists are really willing to undermine the prevailing political system because that’s the source of their power.  And neither parties’ loyalists are really willing to oppose serious expansions or abuses of government power when their side is in control, and no serious challenge is therefore ever mounted; the only ones who are willing to do so are the Crazies.

Thus, for the two parties to ensure that they, and only they, are recognized as Sane, Mainstream voices is to ensure, above all else, the perpetuation of status quo power.  As Noah Millman insightfully pointed out this week, those on the Right and Left devoted to civil liberties and limitations on executive power find more common cause with each other than with either of the two parties’ establishments.  The same is true on a wide array of issues, including limitations on corporate influence in Washington and opposition to the National Security State.

That’s why the greatest sin, the surest path to marginalized Unseriousness, is to stray from the safe confines of loyalty to the Democratic or Republican establishments.  To our political class, Treason is defined as anyone who forms an alliance, even on a single issue, with someone in the Crazy Zone.  That’s because breaking down those divisive barriers can be uniquely effective in enabling ideologically diverse citizens to join together to weaken power factions, as Alan Grayson proved when he teamed up with Ron Paul to force the uber-secret Fed to submit to at least some version of an audit (backed by several leading progressives joining with Grover Norquist and other Crazies to support it), or as Al Gore proved when he brought substantial attention to Bush’s war on the Constitution by forming an alliance with Bob Barr and other right-wing libertarians.  Preventing (or at least minimizing) those types of ad hoc alliances through use of the Crazy smear ensures a divided and thus weakened citizenry against entrenched political power in the form of the two parties.  Obviously, the more stigmatized it is to stray from two-party loyalty, the stronger the two parties (and those who most benefit from their dominance) will be.

If one wants to argue that Ron Paul and others like him hold specific views that are crazy, that’s certainly reasonable.  But those who make that claim virtually always hold views at least as crazy, and devote themselves to one of the two political parties that has, over and over, embraced insane, destructive and warped policies of their own.  The reason the U.S. is in the shape it’s in isn’t because Ron Paul and the rest of the so-called ”crazies” have been in charge; they haven’t been, at all.  The policies that have prevailed are the ones which the two parties have endorsed.  So where does the real craziness lie?

* * * * *

Just to preempt non sequiturs, this isn’t a discussion of Ron Paul, but of the irrational use of the “crazy” accusation in our political discourse and the effects of its application.

UPDATE:  I’ll try this one more time:  for those wanting to write about all the bad things Ron Paul believes, before going into the comment section, please read and then re-read these three sentences:

There’s no question that Ron Paul holds some views that are wrong, irrational and even odious. But that’s true for just about every single politician in both major political parties . . . My point isn’t that Ron Paul is not crazy; it’s that those who self-righteously apply that label to him and to others invariably embrace positions and support politicians at least as “crazy.”

This is a comparative assessment between (a) those routinely dismissed as Crazy and (b) the two party establishments and their Mainstream Loyalists who do the dismissing.  Assessing (a) is completely nonresponsive and irrelevant without comparing it to (b).

UPDATE II:  One other point:  intense, fixated mockery of marginalized, powerless people has the benefit of distracting attention from the actions of those who are actually in power.

Regardless, here is Read’s The Search for an Echo in its entirety. Enjoy and share, as this is by far the best essay Read penned on a theory of social change.

Tell me today what the philosopher thinks, the university professor expounds, the schoolmaster teaches, the scholar publishes in his treatises and textbooks, and I shall prophesy the conduct of individuals, the ethics of businessmen, the schemes of political leaders, the plans of economists, the pleadings of lawyers, the decisions of judges, the legislation of lawmakers, the treaties of diplomats, and the decisions of state a generation hence.
AUTHOR UNKNOWN

“Your educational work at FEE is sound enough and I concede its necessity in normal times. But, it’s too slow under present conditions. I want action, and quick. Time is running out. My efforts and money from now on will be devoted to putting the right men in public office.”

The above summarizes a substantial, and perhaps even a growing sentiment. It stems from impatience. The interventionists, it is observed, have “leaders” galore in the political arena. Why, inquire many anti-interventionists, should we tarry any longer? Why not find ourselves some political leaders who will represent our points of view? Plans are then proposed for the organization of citizens down to the precinct level, and likely personalities are sought among renowned generals, businessmen, academicians, and others who have, in their own specialized fields, arrived at acknowledged leadership. It is assumed that the nation will be saved should they be elected to public office.

If this were the road out of the socialistic wilderness and if these miracle persons were to be found, all of us might consider joining the political actionist parade. To take this route, however, is of no more avail than looking for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

The reason that the interventionists have so many “leaders” is only because there is throughout our land a very substantial body of influential, interventionist opinion. The ones out front and who are popularly appraised as leaders are, in fact, not the real leaders. They are but echoes of the underlying opinion, and an echo implies an antecedent sound. They did not create the situation in which they find themselves; they are but the products or manifestations of the status quo. They, like actors in a play, merely move out front by reason of the fact that they can better articulate and dramatize the prevailing interventionist thought than can others. The real leaders of interventionism or any other movement, like playwrights, lie more under the surface, are a quieter breed, and not nearly as observable popularly.

Anti-interventionists lack “leaders” because there does not exist an influential libertarian opinion substantial enough to create the desired political response. What I wish to suggest here is the futility of attempting to build on a foundation that does not exist. One might as well look for an abundance of flowers where there has been a scarcity of seeds or listen for many echoes where there have been but few prior sounds. The out-front folks in political parties are but a thermometer—indicators of the political temperature. Change the temperature and there will be a change in what’s out front—naturally and spontaneously. The only purpose in keeping an eye on the thermometer is to know what the temperature is. If the underlying influential opinion—the temperature—is interventionist, we’ll have interventionists in public office regardless of the party labels they may choose for their adornment and public appeal.

If the underlying influential opinion—the temperature—is libertarian, we’ll have spokesmen for libertarianism in public office. Nor will all the king’s horses and all the king’s men be able to alter the reading of the political thermometer one whit.

It’s the influential opinion that counts, and nothing else. This is to be distinguished from “public opinion,” there being no such thing. Every significant movement in history—good or bad—has resulted from influential ideas held by comparatively few persons.

Here, then, is the key question: What constitutes an influential opinion? In the context of moral, social, economic, and political philosophy, influential opinion stems from or rests upon (1) depth of understanding, (2) strength of conviction, and (3) the power of attractive exposition. These are the ingredients of self-perfection as relating to a set of ideas. Persons who thus improve their understanding, dedication, and exposition are the leaders of men; the rest of us are followers, including the out-front political personalities.

To illustrate: How many persons today, or even in his own time of the early seventeenth century, ever heard of Hugo Grotius? Few, indeed, then or now! Yet, here is what the eminent historian, Andrew Dickson White, in the year 1910, wrote of this exceptionally important unknown:

“Into the very midst of all this welter of evil, at a point in time to all appearance hopeless, at a point in space apparently defenseless, in a nation of which every man, woman, and child was under sentence of death from its sovereign, was born a man who wrought as no other has ever done for a redemption of civilization from the main cause of all that misery; who thought out for Europe the precepts of right reason in international law; who made them heard; who gave a noble change to the course of human affairs; whose thoughts, reasonings, suggestions, and appeals produced an environment in which came an evolution of humanity that still continues.”

One man altered the ways of the world. He achieved a degree of perfection that caused others to follow his insights and understanding. He spawned ideas that politicians emphasized and glamorized for which they more than Grotius became widely known as “leaders.”

In this day of our need how are we to find ourselves a Grotius, a Sarpi, a Turgot, or a thousand and one others who have quietly but brilliantly modified the world into better ways? Those of us who would have any part in working out this answer have no recourse except to strive for an increasing perfection of ourselves, that is, conscious personal efforts to become such helpful individuals. It isn’t that you or I, specifically, will make the grade. It is that out of a fairly wide creative effort in which we participate some few will assuredly achieve the competence our time so sorely requires.

This is the educational, not the political, way to mankind’s improvement. True, it is slow in terms of one’s life span, but it has the distinct advantage of being the single practical way there is. Let us try this way and witness its fruits!
If we continue to exclaim—“I want action. Time is running out”—and persist in the error of trying to reverse cause and effect, the political echo will continue to confirm, “Time is running out.”

— — — — — — —
Mr. Read is Founder and President of the Foundation for Economic Education.