Schooling Sanders On ‘Inequality Of Condition’ As Essential To Progress & Liberty

Constitution, Democracy, Federalism, Founding Fathers, Liberty, Socialism, Taxation

In his spectacular “Disquisition on Government,” John C. Calhoun, one of America’s greatest political thinkers, outlines why it is so dangerous to depict liberty as meaningless without equality, when the opposite is the truth. From A Disquisition on Government:

… There is another error, not less great and dangerous, usually associated with the one which has just been considered. I refer to the opinion, that liberty and equality are so intimately united, that liberty cannot be perfect without perfect equality.

That they are united to a certain extent — and that equality of citizens, in the eyes of the law, is essential to liberty in a popular government, is conceded. But to go further, and make equality of condition essential to liberty, would be to destroy both liberty and progress. The reason is, that inequality of condition, while it is a necessary consequence of liberty, is, at the same time, indispensable to progress. In order to understand why this is so, it is necessary to bear in mind, that the main spring to progress is, the desire of individuals to better their condition; and that the strongest impulse which can be given to it is, to leave individuals free to exert themselves in the manner they may deem best for that purpose, as far at least as it can be done consistently with the ends for which government is ordained — and to secure to all the fruits of their exertions.

Now, as individuals differ greatly from each other, in intelligence, sagacity, energy, perseverance, skill, habit of industry and economy, physical power, position and opportunity — the necessary effect of leaving all free to exert themselves to better their condition, must be a corresponding inequality between those who may possess these qualities and advantages in a high degree, and those who may be deficient in them. The only means by which this result can be prevented are, either to impose such restrictions on the exertions of those who may possess them in a high degree, as will place them on a level with those who do not; or to deprive them of the fruits of their exertions.

But to impose such restrictions on them would be destructive of liberty — while, to deprive them of the fruits of their exertions, could be to destroy the desire of bettering their condition. It is, indeed, his inequality of condition between the front and rear ranks, in the march of progress, which gives so strong an impulse to the former to maintain their position, and to the latter to press forward into their files. This gives to progress its greatest impulse. To force the front rank back to the rear, or attempt to push forward the rear into line with the front, by the interposition of the government, would put an end to the impulse, and effectually arrest the march of progress.

These great and dangerous errors have their origin in the prevalent opinion that all men are born free and equal — than which nothing can be more unfounded and false. It rests upon the assumption of a fact, which is contrary to universal observation, in whatever light it may be regarded. It is, indeed, difficult to explain how an opinion so destitute of all sound season, ever could have been so extensively entertained, unless we regard it as being confounded with another, which has some semblance of truth — but which, when properly understood, is not less false and dangerous. …

MORE Disquisition on Government.

Dim Dems Do A Town Hall ‘Debate’

Democrats, Elections, Hillary Clinton, Republicans

When Hillary Clinton strode onto the stage, I begged off tweeting the Democratic town-hall love fest, in Des Moines, Iowa, with CNN’s Chris Cuomo and an adulating audience. The woman is impossible to watch; ditto toady Cuomo. She may be perfectly nice in person, but Hillary is shrill and hostile in public. Every Republican aside John Kasich, who’s also an unpleasant so-and-so, is more people-oriented than Hillary.

Dumbness Might Explain National Review Mediocrities’ Missteps

Conservatism, Intelligence, Neoconservatism, Republicans

Question: Where is Chucky Krauthammer in the “Conservatives Against Trump” production? He is one self-important, neoconservative, who’s not mad about Trump. Why is Chucky nowhere to be found among the NRO Peanut Gallery standing “bravely” against the Republican base rising?

My working hypothesis: Chucky Krauthammer is smarter than the mediocrities on the “Conservatives against Trump” list.

It’s a super-duper dumb thing to come out as a collective against a candidate—Trump—who’s so wildly popular with the Republican base and beyond, and who could very well be the GOP’s nominee.

Dumbness—overall G-factor deficit—might explain the National Review mediocrities’ missteps.

Have you checked the names on the National Review list Against Trump? They’ve been anointed “prominent conservatives,” or “leading conservatives” in the Moron Media. But most are conservatives in name only—as Jack Kerwick has argued, with reference to the absence in their “work” of a hint of Edmund Burke, “the patron saint” of conservatism,” his “20th century’s American reincarnation, Russell Kirk,” or Michael Oakeshott.

And they constantly yack it up for a global, ideological American Manifest Destiny.

One might say these National Reviewnicks stand athwart historic, Old Right conservatism.

As to “thinkers. Kenneth Minogue was a “thinker.” Roger Scruton is a thinker. John O’Sullivan, boy, can he think (which is probably why he was nudged out as editor of NR, in favor of intellectual pygmy, Rich Lowery).

But these people?

Mona Charen (mediocre scribbler), Dana Loesch (gorgeous gun-toting broadcaster), Katey Pavlich (youthful nullity), Glenn Beck (irrational mystic), Michael Mukasey (government functionary/attorney and Jeb Bush cheer leader), on and on. (Thomas Sowell is an economist, that’s about it. He’s nothing like Murray Rothbard or other Austrian-school thinkers.) As for Rich Lowery; he needs your pity.

National Review Stands Athwart Historic Conservatism Of Burke, Kirk

Classical Liberalism, Conservatism, Donald Trump, History, Neoconservatism

Most of the National Review recruits who’ve enlisted Against Trump are conservatives in name only, as Jack Kerwick’s learned allusion to conservatism’s founding philosophers concludes. NRO’s promotion of “‘American Exceptionalism,’ the radically ahistorical doctrine that America is not a historically and culturally-specific country but an ‘idea,’ an abstract ‘proposition,'” makes this lot unconservative.

One might say National Review stands athwart historic conservatism (to borrow from founder William F. Buckley’s famous mission statement to stand athwart history).

“National Review vs. Trump?” by Jack Kerwick (published, surprisingly, by TownHall.com):

… NR’s contributors are indeed correct that Trump is not any sort of conservative in the classical or traditional sense of the word. But neither are Trump’s “conservative” critics conservative in the classical or traditional sense of the word.

Undoubtedly, Trump has never read, if he’s even heard of, Edmund Burke, “the patron saint” of conservatism. I would be surprised if he’s even heard of, let alone read, the work of the 20th century’s American reincarnation of Burke, Russell Kirk. Chances are even slimmer yet that he’s familiar with Michael Oakeshott’s classic essay, “On Being Conservative,” or George Nash’s and Paul Gottfried’s seminal studies of the conservative movement in America.

The one contemporary nationally-renown figure who is more philosophically approximate to Burke and Kirk than anyone else—Pat Buchanan—Trump at one time ridiculed. Nor has Trump been any more generous to either Ron or Rand Paul, both of whom, though widely regarded as “libertarian,” are nevertheless conservative just insofar as they are (or at least seem to be) committed to federalism, our Constitution.

Yet here’s the rub: What’s true of Trump in all of these respects is at least as true of many of his critics in the NR symposium.

Granted, I’m sure that there are many among the latter who have heard of Burke. Since Kirk’s name was at one time on NR’s masthead, some of them have probably heard of him as well. However, Kirk’s name is scarcely ever, if at all, mentioned by any contemporary “conservatives.” And on those rare occasions when Burke’s name is dropped, it is almost always in connection with a single line of his: “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

For Buchanan and the Pauls (especially the Elder), many of the Trump critics at NR have reserved nothing but contempt. …

MORE.

RELATED TWEETS: