Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Conservatism and The Establishment

A "conservative," by definition, is a person who prefers the established over the innovative.

It's puzzling to watch conservative commentators make hay about a supposed conflict between conservatives and the establishment.

This conflict, of course, is due to the inherent duplicity of conservatism.

Modern Conservatism is a partisan ideology that uses freedom rhetoric to gain power. Once in power conservatives use their power to reward friends, punish enemies and promote economic centralization at the cost of the general welfare.

The base ideology of conservatism is an ugly thing that traces to Plato, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Burke, Hegel, Leo Strauss, etc. If you are looking for a good read on the foundations of Conservatism, you might like Machiavelli's Virtue by the esteemed conservative scholar Harvey Mansfield.

(BTW, if you prefer writers such as Hayek, Adam Smith, the US Founders, ..., you aren't a conservative, you are actually a classical liberal).

Machiavelli taught the prince that he must strive to appear religious without actually being religious.

Translated into modern times, a conservative must appear to be for free market reform while actually being for economic and political centralization.

Since conservatism is duplicitous by nature, pundits in the conservative movement must periodically come up with excuses to explain away the chasm between what conservatives say to get office and what they actually do once in office.

In some ways, I believe that this current talk about a civil war between conservatives and the establishment is just such an excuse.

Come on guys! A conservative, by the very definition of conservative, favors the consolidation of power into the hands of an elite establishment. Claiming that there is a conflict between conservatism and ultimate desires of conservatism is absurd.

There is a huge conflict between what many people believe conservatism to be and what conservatism really is.

Since conservatism is inherently duplicitous there is no way to resolve this conflict.

Monday, July 14, 2014

The Party of Truth!?

Many members of the GOP hold truth in esteem, while it is fashion for Democrats to declare truth relative.

There is a temptation to take this assumption and make the bold declaration that the GOP is the Party of Truth while the Democratic Party is the Party of Moral Relativism or outright lies.

While the declaration that the GOP is the Party of Truth might appeal to some conservatives. The declaration itself is quite absurd.

The classical western view is that there is a truth, but that humans lack the intellectual capacity or perspective to see this truth in its entirety. We hold truth in esteem but recognize our perspective is limited.

Political parties are the creation of man. Parties are just subject to the limits of man. As the flawed creation of man, parties tend to magnify human errors.

The "collective conscious" of a political party is not a superior being. The "collective conscious" of a political party is an accumulation of all the misperceptions held by the members of the party.

A party is not some sort of superior conscious. Political parties are ever changing political constructs that fluctuate with the political winds. Personally, I would never place faith in a party because parties are fickle and change through a process of action/reaction.

Modern conservatism is a partisan ideology that coevolved with modern progressivism. Conservatism and progressivism transform through action and reaction.

Quite often parties end up swapping positions in the never ending grub for political power. A few generations ago, Conservatives were the ones arguing for conservation and civil rights. Progressives captured these issues. Today, conservatives argue for moderation on civil rights and the environment.

Partisan ideology is a product of a political process and changes with the ebb and flow of political fortune.

While individual conservatives might hold truth in high esteem, conservatism itself does not. Nor can it.

The US Founders had a classical liberal arts education. Classical liberal arts was founded on the Trivium. The three legs of the trivium are grammar, logic and rhetoric. Logic refers to the classical analytic logic of the Aristotelian tradition.

This tradition holds truth in high esteem. I suspect that many of the founders not only believed that there was a truth, but that through the process of reason they could find a way to create a better form of governance.

Interestingly, the founders appear to be troubled by the partisanship of Europe, and although their own experiment in governance quickly broke down into partisanship, I suspect that few believe that truth evolves through a partisan process.

Personally, I suspect that the founders would reject the view that Conservatism was the Party of Truth and Progressivism was the Party of Lies.

While I admire those who believe there is a truth, partisanship is the least likely source for discovering truth.

The Left/Right partisan divide took root in the generations after the founders. Both the Left and Right adopted forms of modern logic, modern dialectics.

If we are to ever restore the American Experiment in self-rule, we need to realize that our partisan ideologies are inherently flawed. A nation cannot find truth through partisanship, but by looking beyond partisanship.

Saturday, July 12, 2014

Conservatism v. Classical Liberalism

In theory, the GOP includes an alliance between "classical liberals" and "conservatives." In practice, the GOP uses classical liberal rhetoric to gain power. When in power, conservatives drive the classical liberals out of the party.

To define terms. The US Founders had a liberal arts education steeped in classical logic and the Western Christian Tradition. The founders applied this education to the question of liberty. The US Founders created a federation of states with a constitutionally limited government.

Classical liberals tend to have a deep appreciation for free market economics as was described by classical liberals such as Adam Smith, Frederick Heyak and von Mises.

Conservatism is a partisan ideology that evolved from the Right wing of European Parliaments.

In the French Revolution the Radical Left sought radical social change while the Reactionary Right sought to preserve the class structure of the ancient regime.

Conservatism is a partisan ideology seeking to preserve the class structure of feudalism.

Like modern liberals, modern conservatives adopted the dialectical methods of Hegel. These methods are often called "modern logic."

Modern dialectics came about as a conservative reaction to the French and American Revolution.

To understand this, one needs to understand a strange detail of history.

The Hanoverian Kings of England (George I, II, III, etc.) were German. The Kings of England funded the Germany University System.
After The US Revolution, The Hanoverian Kings of England tasked the Germany University System to come up with ways to frame the monarchy as progressive.

The reason that modern logic from the German University System had such an immediate effect is because it was funded for and promoted by the monarchy of United Kingdom.

This ideology is typified by Hegel.

Hegel realized that the best way to win an argument is to define the conflict. The intellectual who defines the conflict has the ability define the position on both sides of the conflict and is often in a position to choose the winner of the conflict.

Hegel created a fantastical Philosophy of History in which nation states were actors on the world stage competing for hegemony. Hegel created a modern logic which rejected the basic laws of reason accepted by classical logic. Hegel promoted an idea called "sublation" in which words take on their opposite meaning.

Hegel presented numerous word games that framed freedom as slavery and slavery freedom.

Hegelians creates a bizarre modern liberalism in which people seek servitude to a totalitarian state believing that such subservience is a higher level of freedom.

That said, the best example of Hegelian thought in action today is a little thing called "Fox News." Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly presents news as conflict with the goal of choosing the winner.

Both Modern Liberalism and Modern Conservatism use the same basic methodology of discourse.

This modern left/right split is a false dichotomy. Both sides and the middle of a false dichotomy are false. The game itself was designed so that, regardless of which side wins, the dichotomy will restrict liberty and result in political and economic centralization.

Modern Dialectics was developed by the monarchy as a tool to divide, conquer and impose centralized political rule.

The Progressive Left seeks to frame the centralized state as the source of progress in society. The Reactionary Right seeks to restore the centralized class structure of feudalism. Both the Left and Right lead society on a path to freedom.

The two sides of the coin are made of the same metal.

The Radical Left reached its ultimate expression with Stalin. The Reactionary Right reached its ultimate expression with Hitler. The two extremes of this false dichotomy led the people to ruin.

Another prime example of Modern Dialectics in action can be seen in the writings of Karl Marx.

Marx was an avid follower of Hegel. His goal was to bring about revolution by creating conflict.

The primary work of Marx was a tome called "Das Kapital." Das Kapital describes in detail a dystopia in which business warlords use a corrupt financial system to gain economic and political hegemony. Marx then wrote a short manifesto calling people to rise up against the corrupt order he described in Das Kaptial.

Don't you see the irony?

Karl Marx is the father of Modern Capitalism.

Conservatives jumped on the band wagon and support every word in Marx's capitalism as if Marx's capitalism were the ideal society.

 Marx's goal in writing "Das Kapital" was to create a corrupt top-heavy socio-economic system that was destined to fall.

Conservatives read "Das Kapital," discovered how a captured and corrupt financial system can create a class society.

Conservative then support the corrupt financial system described by Marx because it creates the class society that conservatives so cherish.

Marx called his program Material Dialectics. Marx created this ugly situation in which conservatives argue for controlling society with a corrupt financial system while the radical left argues for rebellion against the corrupt financial system.

The classical liberal view, of course is that, in order to enjoy a free society; one has to stand against the corrupt financial systems.

The supposed alliance between classical liberals and conservatives has muted the classical liberal stance against corrupt finances as conservatives belief that corrupt finances can help keep the lower classes in check.

I stare in disbelief as conservatives wave about Karl Marx's Das Kapital as if Marx had unwittingly uncovered the path to nirvana in this poisonous tome.

I believe that, if we want to restore the American ideals of freedom, people need to stand against Marx's Capitalism and support free market economic reform.

Sadly, anyone who challenges the false assumptions written by Marx in Das Kapital is heaped upon with scorn by rabid Conservative pundits.

This brings me back to the supposed alliance between conservatives and classical liberals.

In theory, the GOP is an alliance between conservatives and classical liberals. I define Classical Liberal as the application of classical logic and Judeo-Christian ethics to the question of liberty. This tradition includes thinkers such as Addison, the US Founders, Adam Smith, Hayek and Von Mises.

Conservatism is a reactionary philosophy arising from the Left/Right split of the French Revolution. Modern conservatives often trace their beliefs to Plato, Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, Edmund Burke, Hegel, Leo Strauss, etc.. Conservatives have a strange fondness of Marx's Das Kapital. Conservative routinely argue that Marx's Capitalism should be the foundation of a new class society.

I admire the US Founders and the Classical Liberal Tradition and have concluded that the supposed alliance between classical liberalism and conservatism has been bad for this nation.

Classical Liberalism includes many of the most beautiful ideas in Western History. Conservatism is a bunch of ugly thoughts about class society.

The alliance allows conservatives to play on the positives of the classical liberal tradition while allowing the left to project all of the negatives of conservatism onto the classical liberal tradition.

The alliance between classical liberals and conservatives has not led our society in a positive direction. 

In the post Pendulum Swing, I noted that both the GOP and Democrats have internal pendulum swings.

The GOP will encourage classical liberal rhetoric when the GOP is in the minority. The GOP clamps down on classical conservatives when the GOP rises to power.

Democrats have the same pendulum swing. They encourage libertine society when they are falling out of favor and progressive centralization when they rise into power.

The two parties have created a dynamic in which we a systematic lessening of individual liberty (a classical liberal ideal) and an imposition of a top heavy state (a progressive state) and corrupt capital system (a conservative ideal).

This pendulum can be seen in the rise and fall of the Tea Party. The GOP encouraged the Tea Party with classical liberal rhetoric. As the GOP ascends back into power, the GOP actively seeks to drive out people expressing classical liberal ideals.

The GOP is currently in the process of driving classical liberal thinkers from its ranks. But, I beg any conservative who reads this rant to take a moment and think. If you removed all the classical liberal thought from the GOP, what do you have?

Classical liberalism is the application of classical logic to thoughts on liberty. The tradition includes the US Founders, Adam Smith, Hayke, Von Mises, etc..

Conservatives, for some odd reason, prefer the likes of Machiavelli, Hobbes, Burke, Hegel. Conservatives wave about Marx's Das Kapital is if the dystopia of Marx's Capitalism was the ideal class society.

Conservatives have declared an unqualified hatred of all things liberal and seek to drive out the liberal ideals of the US Founders. I beg conservatives to consider: When you drive out the classical liberal ideas of the US Founders, Adam Smith, Hayek, von Mises, etc., what do you have left?

You are left with the corruption of Machiavelli, the Leviathan of Hobbes, the duplicity of Burke, the irrationality of Hegel and the insanity of Marx's Capitalism. Modern Conservatism is as much a Road to Serfdom as is modern progressivism.

The Left/Right split is a false dichotomy. Both sides of a false dichotomy are false. When a coin is stamped from manure both sides of the coin stink.

Friday, July 11, 2014

Another Interesting Excommunication

Here is another interesting excommunication:

Helmuth Hübener (1925-1942) was from an LDS family living in Hamburg, Germany. Despite warnings from the LDS President Heber Grant to keep a low political profile during the war the young Hübener listened to BBC and distributed anti-fascist pamphlets.

Helmuth Hübener was arrested on February 5, 1942. Ten days later he was excommunicated from The LDS Church. Hübener was executed in August, 1942.

Thursday, June 26, 2014

I Did Not Have a Classical Liberal Education

In past posts I've opined that the difference between classical and modern liberalism is the underlying logical structure.

I should mention. I did not have a classical liberal education. I had the same progressive education as everyone else.

I grew up adoring the 60s. I thought Rock and Roll was a substantive form of music. I parroted the petty prejudices of the professoriat as they lavished praise on Jimmy Carter and heaped scorn on Reagan. I remember the deep dismay when the snarl words failed to turn the tide against the Teflon President.

I was interested in the foundations of mathematics and hoped to become a teacher; so I studied the history of mathematics. I saw classical logic as some sort of primitive state of thought that existed before symbolic logic and set theory.

My primary interest was the foundations of calculus.Since the equations of calculus play a fundamental role in physics, economics and many sciences, I believe that it was imperative to develop a way to teach calculus in high school. So, I had this ambition of become a high school math teacher who would focus on analytic geometry and calculus.

I saw myself as a young progressive thinker. I went to school in the Bay Area in about the same time that David Horowitz made his departure from progressivism. I saw first hand the things Horowitz went through in Radical Son.

Horowitz took his progressive writing style and turned the guns on the progressive movement.

As I was still in school, I simply became more attentive to foundational issues and began investigating the differences between classical and modern liberalism.

Unfortunately, my blatant act of questioning the foundations of progressivism caused me to be flunked out of college.

It was not until several years after college that I began reading books on logic and realized that fundamental transition that took place in the 1800s between the development of classical logic.

I happen to live in Utah. Utah is a closed society. By closed, I mean it is a society that is dead bolted shut against open discourse and new ideas.

For example, for the last six years, I've had the hope of either attending or hosting a meeting about free market health care reform. In six years, I've been unable to find any conservative groups holding meetings about free market health care reform, and all of my attempts to host a meeting have failed.

I can understand people being unwilling to talk to me. But Health Care is the single most important issue of our generation and I find no-one in the state talking about alternatives to the health exchanges.

NOTE to Utah: PPACA is a network of health exchanges regulated by the Federal Government but run at the state level. Creating an exchange that is run at a state level and is regulated by the Federal Government is not an alternative to PPACA.

Being a pariah doesn't bother me, but a complete blackout of discourse is troubling.

I keep coming back to this one point:

If Conservatives continue their stonewall suppression of discourse, there is no option but to give into PPACA. Quite frankly, I fear that if Americans the few remaining free market aspects of our health care, that we will soon lose all freedoms. If we don't have freedom to direct the care of our bodies then what freedom is there?

Having received the same progressive education as the rest of America and having never been in a situation where open inquiry and discourse was allowed, I am just left banging my head against stone walls without the slightest idea of how to act.

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

The Right to Self Definition

This may come as a shock and appears to be unfair but most of the senior positions in the GOP are held by Republicans and most senior positions of the Democratic Party are held by Democrats.

If the Democratic Party was as opened as they claim, wouldn't they give a third of their top seats to Republicans or vice-versa?

If I organized a mass movement that demanded the GOP include Democrats in top slots, most people would stare at me incredulously.
The parties are private groups. The prevailing opinion is that private groups should have the ability to define themselves.

While private groups should have the ability to define themselves, I think it is important for societies to have room for everyone.

Putting my money where my mouth is: I created the Community Color project in which I list all of the web sites I find from select communities in the Moutain West.  While the sites are far from comprehensive. I am making a concerted effort to list links to a wide selection of sites expressing different opinions.

Quite frankly, I really dislike systems in which people are locked out.

Our two party system has created a political dynamics in which most the leaders in the Democratic Party are Democrats and those in the GOP are Republican.

The dynamics of this system creates a dysfunctional system in which independent thinkers are shut out.

The only way for an independent thinker to get elected is to lie about party affiliation, which means the only way for independent thought to occur in our legislatures is for it to come through liars.

When one is locked out of society. The only way to engage in political discourse is to sit on the sideline and snipe at the power brokers.

The US Founders hated partisanship. They were independent thinkers who appear to have accepted the independent thought of others. The Founders failed to anticipate the rise of the parties. There is no mention of the parties in the Constitution.

Were the founders to rematerialize on this planet, they would likely find themselves locked out of the political process like the majority of Americans.

The only way for independents to engage in discourse is to sit on the sidelines of the parties and snipe at the players or to lie to get an inside seat.  Both options are unsatisfactory.

IMHO, communities must include roles for everyone. Problems arise when individual groups get so powerful that they are able to dominate society and drive others out.

When there are groups that gain hegemony, question arise about how to counter the groups. Should the groups be deny the ability to define themselves, or is the only recourse for the disenfranchised to form other power groups to stand against the hegemony?

My personal impulse is that that people wishing to live independent lives should live their lives in ways that discourage the development of such hegemnies.

But, then again, I am one of the millions of independent thinkers who are locked out of society and who can do nothing but sit on the sidelines and snipe.

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

The September Six

As expected, the founder of Ordain Women was excommunicated.

The LDS Church routinely engages in purgings of intellectuals. Usually it is done under the table. For example, about ten years ago, a powerful group was pushing the theory that the Book of Mormon took place in Central America. Apparently the scholars supporting the Meso-American view are out and a new group claiming the Book of Mormon took place in the US is in.

This was a major purge took place in silence.

About five years ago, there were several production companies producing independent LDS Moviies like Brigham City and God's Army. It appears that the filmmakers are on the out.

In 1993 there was a general purging of intellectuals. This purging created a group called "The September Six." This purge included the BYU historian named Dennis Michael Quinn who wrote books on some of the less savory aspects of Mormonism including the history of polygamy and the "Early Mormonism and The Magical World View."

The book suggests that Mormonism arose among people who believed in aspects of folk magic such as a belief in second sight.

Mormonism is not the first experience in America with the magical world view. In the 1690s folks in Salem held a magical world view. With support from the Mathers of Harvard, the good people of Salem engaged in witch trials based largely on spectral evidence. Twenty people were executed and scores imprisoned. The funny thing is that large numbers of people confessed to being witches based on spectral evidence.

Some people are challenged by the prospect that the testimonies for The Book of Mormon were based on claims to the magical powers of "second sight" and not real evidence. Excommunicating scholars who research such quaint notions is a must.

The overt act of excommunications in 1993 brought a backlash in bad publicity. Recent purgings have been much more tactful. For example, the people supporting the Meso American theory of the book of Mormon just disappeared along with the independent Mormon films.

The OrdainWomen was an overtly audacious movement to force change on the the LDS Church. The LDS Church has a right to define itself and acted exactly in the way that its fundamental doctrines tells it to act.

Much as I love open discourse. I believe strong that groups have a right to self-definitions. The big problems I see occur when a group has amassed so much power that they are able to suppress discourse throughout an entire community as appears to have happened here in Utah.

My pet issue, as you probably know, is free market health care reform. The LDS Church has billions invested in the Health Exchanges. Mormons supporting the Health Exchanges of PPACA include Harry Reid, Mitt Romney, Mike Leavitt, Jon Huntsman, Gary Herbert and more.

The LDS Church is heavily invested in the insurance industry and in the back bone processes of the exchanges.

I believe that Americans should question the Health Exchanges. For that matter, I think Americans should really question the wisdom of insurance.

I am not LDS. But since I live in Utah which is run by the LDS Church, I have to live with the reality that all attempts to debate free market health care reform will be suppressed.

So, while I support the right of the LDS Church to define itself, I have concerns about what point the right of self-definition turns to over arching societal. Anyway, it was interesting watching the overt and open excommunication of Ordain Women.

Monday, June 23, 2014

People Don't Have to Listen

There is no law nor moral imperative that says people must listen.

A group called Ordain Women wants to march up to the LDS General Authority and slap down a demand that women be ordained a priests.

The LDS General Authority is in the process of "casting out" the creators of Ordain Women. I used the word "casting out" because The Doctrine and Covenant by Joseph Smith actually says that the LDS Church is to handle dissent by casting out the dissenters.

Personally, I am a huge fan of open discourse and I dislike closed power structures.

But, guess what? I realize that there is no law that says my words or that the words of anyone else be heard.

I have a whole list of things that I think are important and would love to say. But accept that I live in a closed society where people simply stonewall each other.

BTW: Pointing out that the LDS Church is a closed power structure is fine. That is what I am doing in this post. The expectation that a closed power structure is supposed to discuss any pet issue is absurd.

A closed power structure is closed. That is the whole point of a closed power structure.

I dislike closed power structures and actively encourage people to reject such things, but the expectation that closed power structures behave like open power structures is unreasonable.

April Bennett wrote an amusing op-ed in the Tribune

In stark contrast to allegations by LDS Church public relations employees that Ordain Women has made "non-negotiable demands," Ordain Women representatives have actively sought to initiate discussions with LDS leaders, including five written requests to LDS Church headquarters for meetings with any General Authority available and willing. These requests have been ignored. In this vacuum, we are left to interpret the will of our own ecclesiastical leaders through a hodgepodge of church PR statements.

The editorial is amusing in that Ms. Bennett is claiming that the "Ordain Women" is not making "demands" when the very name of the organization is a demand. In English Grammar a verb followed by a noun is a command.

If a group called "Impeach Obama" made a request for a White House Press Interview; the White House would be correct to assume the group was a political group seeking to impeach the president and not engaged in simple journalistic inquiry

Just as the LDS Church is a closed power structure by its very nature. The group "Ordain Women" is a demand by name and structure.

That a closed power structure is stonewalling a demand is not unexpected.

I admit that living in a closed society is quite frustrating but the expectation that the people closed up on the Tower or Power on the corner of State and Temple listen to arguments is against the nature of the Tower of Power.

It would be nice to live in a world where people could talk with one another but, with the way we were taught in school to engage in discourse, such a dream is not possible.

Sunday, June 22, 2014

The Elimination of Logic

The US Founders had a Liberal Arts Education steeped in classical logic. They applied this classical education to the question of liberty and came up with a constitutionally limited federal government. I like to call this view "classical liberalism."

In this light, I believe that the most devastating action of the progressive era came in the 1900s with the removal of logic from the curriculum in the early 1900s.

Quite frankly, I fear that classical logic is so fundamental to this nation that it may not be possible to restore the American experiment in self rule.

This post looks at creation of modern logic and the removal of the study of classical logic from the curriculum.

Classical liberal arts education was based on the Trivium. The three legs of The Trivium are grammar, logic and rhetoric. Grammar is the study of the structure of language. Logic is the study of the structure of ideas and rhetoric is the art of communication.

The goal of classical logic was to teach people the structure of language and ideas and how to communicate with others.

The US Founders came from extremely diverse backgrounds and had radically different ideas. They were able to communicate, rise against the British and created their experiment in self rule because they were able to understand each others' arguments and communicate.

I, just like everyone else today, was weened on modern logic. With modern logic, we've lost the ability communicate. All people seem to be able to do is toss barbs passed each other in a shrill form of non-communication.

Fox News, the Conservative Station, is probably the best example of modern dialectics in action. Fox seeks to dominate the ratings by presenting news as conflict. Each story is present as a left/right conflict with the commentators shouting past each other.

The removal of logic didn't just affect the left. The removal of logic from the curriculum affected everyone. The new material dialectics has impeded the ability of people on the right to engage in communication just as it has impeded people on the left.

If we have the goal of restoring the American Experiment in Self Rule, we simply must look at the removal of logic from the curriculum.

This story starts with the conflict between the founders and the monarchy. The US Founders had a liberal arts education steeped in classical logic. They applied this education to the question of liberty and created a federation of states with a constitutionally limited federal government. They ended much of the government meddling in business which laid the foundation for a free market.

A central feature of classical logic is a distaste of paradoxes and absolutes. Logicians have known about paradoxes since antiquity. The bulk of thinkers in the Aristotelian tradition sought to avoid paradox. The best known paradox is the reflexive paradox. The reflexive paradox includes a self reference and a negation. The prime example is:

"This sentence is false."

The statement "This sentence is true" is also paradoxical.

Most absolutes lead to paradoxes. Bringing an idea to an absolute tends to create a self reference and a paradox. Classical thinkers tended to favor moderation to absolutes.

Classical thinkers realized that virtues pushed too far became vices. This view is clearly seen in the Aristotelian view of the tragedy. In an Aristotelian tragedy the tragic hero is brought down by a virtue pushed too far. The tragic flaw is a misplaced virtue.

Both the Republican form of government (democracy) and freedom are subject to well know paradoxes.

A Republic can vote in a tyrant; thus ending the democracy.

Those seeking freedom eventually face the question: Does my freedom give me the right to take others as slavers, or to sell myself into slavery.

Because Freedom and Republican forms of government lead directly to paradoxes, most classical conservatives dismissed the ideals of classical liberals as naive.

Classical liberals, in turn, realized that in order to create an enduring Republic, the republic would need to limit the scope of governance while including stringent safeguards for the rights of those in the minority. As for freedom, classical liberals realized that individual freedom must stop at the doorstep of others.

The Founders were not able to resolve the scourge of their day, slavery, but the creation of a constitutionally limited federal government flows directly from classical liberal thought.

Classical conservatives saw the founders as naive. The conservatives of 1776 stood shoulder to shoulder with the British during the Revolution and leveled their musket fire at the founders.

Because the founders were committed to their classical liberal ideals, the did not seek retribution from the Conservatives of 1776 who they let back into society, though at a diminished social status.

Meanwhile, back in Europe, the monarchy did fade silently into the night.

To understand this reaction, you need to realize that the Hanoverian Kings of England were from Hanover Germany. The Kings of England funded the German University. The monarchy tasked the German University system with reframing the monarchy as progressive.

The produce of this thought is typified by the works of Hegel.

Advocates for the monarchy (the classical conservative) was losing arguments to classical liberals.

When the powerful are losing they simply change the rules. Rather than engaging in open. Hegel created a new modern logic that denied the laws of classical reasoning.

Hegel created a bizarre form of argumentation that held paradox at the foundations and conflict on the surface. This type of thought could be called modern logic, modern dialectics, or new think.

Hegel created a philosophy of history in which nation states were collectives vying for dominance on the world stage.

Above all, Hegel, who came to adore Napoleon, played on the paradoxes of freedom and democracy with eyes on revitalizing the centralized state. Hegel presented numerous proofs in which he showed freedom to be slavery and slavery freedom. He called the transition of a word into its opposite "sublation."

Modern logic was a huge hit in both Europe and the Americas where slave owners were eager to defend their position and classical conservatives were eager to establish a class society in the Americas.

The Left/Right split that dominates modern politics came from the parliaments of Europe. The radical left sought radical social change and was drunk on this new modern logic. The reactionary right loved the paradoxical views of the modern liberal because it allowed them to put down both the modern and classical liberal.

Of course, classical logic was still taught in the schools and classical liberalism was still the prominent world view in The United States until the early 1900s.

Again, I need to emphasize, people with a classical liberal arts education who apply their education to questions of liberty and governance will appreciate the American Experiment in Self Rule.

The enemies of freedom realized that the first step to destroying this experiment was to remove classical logic from the school.

There was a huge effort to do this led by the likes of John Dewey  (1859 - 1952).

My progressive teachers adored John Dewey. I mean the creator of the Dewey Decimal System must be a learned man and clear thinker..

NOTE: The Dewey Decimal System was created by Melvil Dewey (1851–1931). The idea of classifying books by metadata is very much in keeping with classical logic.

John Dewey was little more than a Hegelian thug.

Keeping with Hegel's idea that nations are a spirits acting on the world stage, Dewey advanced a collectivist view with people just being cogs in a collective ruled by a democratic process with educators and public philosophers leading people about by their nose rings.

Dewey and cohorts saw individuals trained in classical logic and engaged in independent thinking as a great threat to his idealized collectivist democracy. Dewey's generation of public educators worked tirelessly to remove classical logic from the schools. This transition was largely completed by the 1940s.

It is hard to completely transform a nation in a single generation. The ideals of the classical liberal held on as a common sense conservatism for a few decades.

But it has been almost a full century since logic was pulled from the curriculum and it is absurd that a common sense conservatism devoid of replenishing thought can maintain the ideals of classical liberalism.

There have been some incredibly strong voices in the Classical Liberal Tradition such Hayek and Von Mises.

During the years of FDR and after WWII, classical liberals, common sense conservatives and a new breed of brash modern conservative intellectual formed an alliance against modern liberalism.

Since we are almost a full century from the removal of logic from the classroom, the common sense conservative has faded and the GOP is left with an uneasy alliance between those still holding the ideals of classical liberals and modern conservatives.

Seventy years into this alliance one finds that there has been a steady decline in the American Experiment in Self Rule largely at the hands of the modern conservatives.

I've reluctantly concluded that the only way to restore the American Experiment in Self Rule (classical liberalism) is to recognize the Left/Right split as a false dichotomy and believe that we must challenge both modern liberals and modern conservatives. Both of these modern ideologies appear to be based on the same modern dialectics.

The fact that logic was eliminated from the curriculum is a challenge. However, programming languages and classical science preserve some aspects of classical logic, so there is hope.

Saturday, June 21, 2014

A Conservative Workers' Movement

I finally broke down and read Mein Kempf this year. The book was as horrible as the man. But the book answered a very puzzling question: Why did an arch conservative start a labor movement?
He did so, of course, because he realized that the people who actually did the work in Germany were getting the shaft by corrupt legal, economic and labor forces.

Hitler criticized the bourgeoisie conservative for undervaluing the important role that people who actually do work play in our society. The true workers in the German economy were as disaffected from the left as they were from the right and were ripe for the picking.

Hitler was a creature of the right. Current right wing thinkers try to disassociate themselves from the man because he rose to power on a labor movement.

Interestingly, Rick Santorum, an arch-conservative in American politics, is advocating the exact same move in his new work Blue Collar Conservatives is proposing the exact same political strategy.

Santorum's recipe for gaining power is to create a conservative workers' movement while working to drive classical liberals (free marketeers) out of the GOP.

Conservatives and progressives simply swap positions on issues while seeking seeking the consolidation of power. Both the rogues on the left and rogues on the right lead our nation to ruin.