MayerBlog: The Web Log of
|
|
|
Somebody’s Gotta Say It! (Part I)
Somebody’s Gotta Say It! is the title of the new book by Neal Boortz, the libertarian radio talk show commentator. The book is chock-full of insightful – and eloquently blunt – comments about what’s wrong with America today. Of course, Boortz attacks Democrats and other leftists. In a chapter early in the book, “The War on the Individual,” he identifies the essential political issue of our time, the conflict between the individual and the collective. And, with a series of quotations showing the clear parallels between today’s Democrat collectivists (such as Hillary Clinton) and that of collectivists of the past (Hitler, Lenin, and Mussolini), Boortz shows how modern left-liberals have been trying to demonize individualism. Anticipating the 2008 elections, he predicts how Democrats will advance their theme, “The Common Good”: “You’ll hear nothing from the Democrats about individual rights, nothing about individual achievement. The entire focus will be on group dynamics. You’ll hear speech after speech about `the poor’ and `the less fortunate.’ There will be repeated demands that `the rich’ step up to the plate to pay `their fair share.’ Much will be said about income redistribution, completely ignoring that the act of earning a living is a uniquely individual pursuit” (p. 28). He then explains the importance of this “war on the individual” in words so simply eloquent that his next several paragraphs deserve being quoted here in full: “The war against individuals will be one of the main fronts in this war. We can expect the Democrats to enter the battle with zeal. As for the Republicans? I’m afraid any defense we get of individualism from the hapless GOP will be lukewarm at best.
“I can’t speak for you, but I am an individual. I exist for me, my family, and my friends – and not for the state. I have individual likes and dislikes, wants and needs. Like you, I am unique, not merely a stamped-out variation of some larger group template.
“Governments exist to protect my rights, not to order my life. And I damn sure don’t exist to serve the government.
“Every single person in this country should loudly proclaim his or her status as a unique and rare human being. We should loudly reject the group classifications that the left tries to force on us.
“If this book accomplishes nothing else, perhaps it will wake you up to the reality of the leftist war against your status as a sovereign human being. This has been going on since the days of Lenin, and Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy carry the torch today.
“You are not a tool of the state. You are not to be used as political cannon fodder for the elevation of a politician or political movement.
“You belong to you, certainly not to the government. Reclaim your ownership of yourself – and let these politicians know that you recognize and reject their war on the individual.”
(Somebody’s Gotta Say It, pp. 28-29) As befits the libertarian that he is, Boortz doesn’t just target leftists, however. He’s equally damning in his criticism of conservatives. As noted above, he points out how disappointingly “lukewarm” Republicans are in defense of individualism. (Not surprising, for conservatives are, compared to left-liberals, merely collectivists of a different stripe.) And he’s particularly critical of some conservative Christian zealots: “The prayer-in-school proponents out there are merely looking for a way to use the government to present religious theory to your child. Those who don’t see that as an abominable violation of the spirit of the First Amendment are either lying, or lacking a basic capacity for logical thought” (p. 60). He also criticizes some conservatives for their attempts to criminalize flag-burning and to have the Biblical theory of creation taught in government schools. And he exposes the homophobia of social conservatives who maintain that homosexuality isn’t “normal”: “Gay sex . . . is perfectly natural . . . for homosexuals! Why does this have to be such a big issue? Why do so many men find it so difficult simply to allow others to live their lives in step with their own sexual orientation, while you do the same?” (p. 52). One of the best chapters in the book discusses “The Tragedy of Our Government Schools.” Boortz explicitly refuses to call them “public schools,” a misleading euphemism for what are really government schools – that is, schools “operated by the government, using government employees, on property owned and controlled by the government, using government funds” (which is to say, as he could have added, that they’re financed by money forcefully seized by government from the taxpayers who earned it) (p. 123). In this chapter, Boortz makes perhaps his most controversial arguments – the statements most likely to be quoted by critics of the book. One is so provocative that Boortz puts it in boldface, to highlight it for his readers (and critics): “There is no greater long-term threat to our continued prosperity, economic liberty, freedom, and quality of life in the United States than that presented by teachers unions. And that included Islamic terrorists.” So Boortz is saying, essentially, that teachers unions are a greater risk to our national security than al Qaeda terrorists. Outrageous? Perhaps. But he’s also essentially right: for it is the nation’s largest teachers unions (the NEA and AFT) that are responsible for perpetuating government’s monopoly over America’s failed school system, a system that is a “laughingstock,” internationally, “with a well-deserved reputation for mediocrity. . . . Our children rank way below those of most European and Asian nations when it comes to testing on the basics. The European kids score higher on math, reading, and science tests than our children. It’s an embarrassment,” Boortz concludes (p. 125). Thus, with justification, he makes another claim that some readers might found outrageous, even though true: “The most rampant form of child abuse in this country is not only legal, but committed routinely. It is the fact of taking what arguably is, or should be, the most precious things in your life – your children – and placing the responsibility for their education in the hands of the government” (p. 124). “Our wonderful government educational system produces graduating classes of young Neanderthals with no sense of individuality, no sense of self-worth, and no understanding of what it means to live in a truly free society” (p. 125). In a subsequent chapter, Boortz lists over a dozen basic truths, as “Things That Should Be Taught in Government Schools,” but aren’t. These include: “1. We are not a democracy. Never were. Weren’t supposed to be. And we shouldn’t be. Explore the Federalist Papers with the children and explain to them why our Founding Fathers abhorred the idea of democracy. Ask them why the word `democracy’ never appeared in a presidential state of the union address until Woodrow Wilson, and today you’ll hear the word no less than twenty times. . . .” (pp. 152-53).
And
“14. Teach them that government has one unique power that we, as mere citizens, do not have: the power to use deadly force to accomplish its goals. Teach them that this should make them suspicious of government at all times.” (p. 155)
Boortz also weighs in on other hot-button political issues, including some politicians’ pet projects. In a chapter on minimum-wage laws, he points out how Democrats “love to point out that it’s all but impossible to raise a family on the minimum wage in the United States,” then gives the following blunt response: “Well, guess what? It’s all but impossible to own and maintain a 150-foot yacht on a middle-class salary in today’s economy. The maintenance on the engines will cost more than you make, and you haven’t even put fuel in the tanks. So what’s the answer? “Don’t buy a yacht if you can’t produce the income to support it. “DON’T HAVE A FAMILY IF YOU CAN’T AFFORD DIAPERS. “Now what part of that do you find difficult to understand?”
(p. 163). He concludes, “Those who favor the protection of laziness and bad behavior through the ill-gotten rewards of the minimum wage are doing a disservice to the very people they profess to be helping. The idea behind raising the minimum wage – or having a government-mandated minimum wage at all, for that matter – is simply to increase and solidify the power of the political class by creating and maintaining a class of workers more dependent on government largesse for their daily bread than on their own hard work” (p. 167).
Other important issues that Boortz tackles include drug criminalization (he has a nice, concise chapter on “Our Absurd War on Drugs”), laws against “price gouging” (which, as he argues, almost always end up hurting consumers), foreign policy (another nice chapter targets “The Insipid United Nations”), and talk radio (including a chapter on the left-liberals’ scheme to silence conservatives by resurrecting the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” i.e., government control over the content of radio broadcasting). In a chapter with the lengthy title “President Bush, the Democrats, the Media, and the War on Islamic Fascism,” Boortz makes the important point that the current U.S. military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan “is commonly, and erroneously, referred to as the `war on terror’” – which, he convincingly argues, is a misnomer. “The enemy here is not terror. Terror is a tactic. The enemy is radical Islam – or, if you prefer, Islamic fascism. The Islamic fascists are dedicated to the destruction of the West. They are zealots who truly believe that it’s their destiny to bring the world under Islamic law.” (pp. 289-90.) In the penultimate chapter of the book, colorfully titled “No Way in Hell,” Boortz outlines the program he’d advocate if he were a presidential candidate. Most of his proposals make perfect sense and are policy changes that I not only agree with but also have advocated myself. These include:
Boortz also has at least a couple proposals with which I disagree – some blind spots in his libertarianism, I think. One is to “replace our electoral system with a parliamentary model.” Boortz would have the U.S. president chosen by Congress (nominated by the House and ratified by the Senate), for a single six-year term. Although I think a single six-year term is a good idea (incumbent presidents spend far too much time and energy running for their reelection), I think the British parliamentary model is inferior to the U.S. system of separation of powers and checks and balances – which (if officials in Washington do indeed follow the Constitution) nicely divides executive, legislative, and judicial powers. And I think the existing Electoral College system of choosing U.S. presidents is also just fine as it is. Another blind spot in Boortz’s libertarianism is his proposal to “strengthen our border protections.” Boortz, unfortunately, has succumbed to the irrational fear of illegal immigrants, arguing that their “invasion” into our workforce must be stopped. But if Boortz would check his philosophical premises, he’d realize that it’s not the proper function of government to interfere with a free market for labor: both goods and people ought to be free to cross borders, without government controls – including protectionist laws for U.S. “legal residents” – interfering with the fundamental freedom of both employers and employees to bargain over the terms of their own employment. As a libertarian, Boortz should know better: it’s not the function of government to guarantee anyone – whether a U.S. citizen or an immigrant, “legal” or “illegal” --a job. Illegal immigration is a pseudo-problem; the solution Boortz proposes really is a problem, because it increases the power of government over something the government ought not to be controlling at all. Finally, in perhaps the most hard-hitting chapter of the book, Boortz takes on the American people generally – and the ultimate problem in American politics today, whether the people are capable of governing themselves. In a rather pessimistic chapter entitled “Freedom-Loving? I Think Not,” Boortz writes despairingly about the prospects for liberty in American because of the poor character of the majority of the American people. “I’ve come to the reluctant but inescapable conclusion that roughly 50 percent of the adults in this country are simply too ignorant and functionally incompetent to be living in a free society.” Moreover, he adds, “Not only are many Americans unequipped to live in a free society, they actually don’t want to live in a free society.” (pp. 218-19.) Boortz is quite right about freedom and personal responsibility going hand-in-hand. Hence, it’s an unfortunate fact of human nature than many people don’t want to have freedom because they don’t want to have the responsibility for their own lives that such freedom entails. Sadly, many Americans would prefer to have the government – as a kind of super-nanny – offering them “security,” “protecting” them from the consequences of their own risky behaviors, even at the cost of loss of their personal freedoms. Take Social Security, for example. Boortz notes how even President Bush’s own party rejected his modest proposal for Social Security reform – allowing individuals to take 2 percent, out of the 14 percent of their salary seized by the government for Social Security, and put it in a private account, which would give them some choice over their retirement investment (and incidentally, a much higher rate of return in the long run). He then tells the following story: “I remember watching one thirtysomething woman on the streets of New York being interviewed on the subject by a network news reporter. When asks what she thought about Bush’s partial Social Security privatization plan, she said no thanks. She didn’t want to have to choose where that money would be invested. She said she just wanted the government to take care of it for her.
“Music to the politician’s ears!
“If Americans truly loved freedom they would not only be embracing the privatization of Social Security, they would be demanding it.”
(p. 220.) For more on why Boortz is right about Social Security, see my previous entry, “Socialist Insecurity,” Feb. 15, 2005.) As Boortz observes, “Freedom means the freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail. Freedom means the freedom to make bad choices and suffer the consequences, and the freedom to make good choices and enjoy the rewards.” (p. 222). Sadly, far too many Americans today simply don’t want the responsibility that comes with the freedom to govern their own lives. Hence, rather than being free to negotiate their own wages, they’d prefer to have the government (or a union) handle that for them. Rather than shopping in the marketplace for their own health insurance plan, they’d prefer to have their employer provide it – or (as many Americans believe) to have the government provide “universal” care. Or rather than accepting responsibility for choosing what programs their children are allowed to watch on broadcast TV, many Americans would rather let the FCC regulate it.
I hope that Boortz is wrong in thinking that a majority of the American people today are unfit for freedom and personal responsibility. Like Thomas Jefferson, I’d like to have confidence in the ability of ordinary people to govern themselves. But, in my more pessimistic moments, I tend to agree with Boortz – and with H. L. Mencken, who wrote in 1927, “I do not have [Jefferson‘s] confidence in the wisdom and rectitude of the common man, but I go with him in his belief that the very commonest of common men have certain inalienable rights." Boortz’s book has inspired me to come up with my own list of observations about recent news items in politics and popular culture – some truths that are obvious to me but which aren’t being said in the “mainstream” news media. I’ll post my list in Part II of this essay, next week.
| Link to this Entry | Posted Tuesday, March 6, 2007 | Copyright © David N. Mayer |
|