Of Free Speech and Insensitivity Training

There is a poignant scene in “Lawrence of Arabia”, a movie with many poignant scenes, in which Lawrence demonstrates to a fellow officer how to snuff out a candle.  He pinches the flame with his fingers.  The other officer gives it a try but jerks back his hand when his fingers are scorched. 

“That hurts,” the officer complains.  Lawrence replies, “Certainly it hurts.  The trick is not minding that it hurts.”

There is a lesson there, particularly important for a society that has become hypersensitive to injury, real or imagined.  Hurt may come from something as small as a look—or failure to look.  It may come from an article of clothing, either worn or neglected.  Lately flags have been targeted as sources of personal and even societal pain.  Hurt may come from something as small as a word.  Indeed, I think that most often today and in our society, both words and our sensitivity to words have become sharpened.

If we are to preserve freedom of speech—in all its important varieties—we need to develop some insensitivity, as in not minding when it hurts.  Freedom of speech only matters when someone hears something he does not like.  The choice then is intolerance and silence or freedom and not minding the hurt. 

Another way to look at it is that we most desire freedom of speech when we are the speaker.  From the point of view of listener, we may have mixed emotions.  We may like what we say, but when we do not like what we hear do we wish to silence the speaker, or do we accept the options of free speech, to turn away or to endure another’s unpleasant rodomontade?

Freedom of speech was made part of the First Amendment, because rulers and monarchs were at pains to inflict genuine physical hurt whenever they took offense at the words of their subjects.  The First Amendment’s protection of free speech was needed to protect people using words that hurt people in government, that offended people in power.

Even though enshrined in the Constitution, freedom of speech has to be won by each generation, because it is constantly in jeopardy.  Americans are nearly unanimous in their support of freedom of speech when it is speech that they like, speech that reinforces their own views, and especially speech that praises and flatters.  We do not particularly need the Constitution to protect that kind of speech.  Speech that is unpopular, speech that goes against the grain, speech that is obnoxious to our opinions, speech that challenges our beliefs, that is the speech the Founders fought to protect.  Most of human progress has come from that kind of speech.  It is speech that is worth protecting today and that many try to silence.

President Obama and his political friends are fond of declaring that “the debate is over,” whether referring to Obamacare, the Dodd-Frank Act, climate change, same-sex marriage, or other important issues of significant disagreement.  I expect that soon we will hear President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry, and other administration spokesmen insist that the debate is over with regard to the nuclear deal with Iran.  In a free republic, can the debate ever really be over?

This is nothing new; it is a continuation of a very old struggle.  Despots great and petty since early ages have exercised what power they might to silence ideas and expressions they did not want to hear, or did not want others to hear.  The gallows, flames, and torture chambers of yesteryear are matched today by bullets, bombs, and bayonets from radical Islam and totalitarian governments.  In the West, where constitutions solemnly embrace free speech, voices are silenced by public ridicule, elaborate and intrusive regulations on what can and cannot be said and when and where—reinforced by government fines, restrictions, confiscations, and jail time. 

I recently visited my son at his new job at a large factory.  He was very careful to spell out to me a lengthy list of subjects I should not bring up, whether from fear of his colleagues, company policies, or federal, state, and local regulations.  I have been given similar training at my place of work.

When I was young I was taught to be courteous and not seek to offend.  I was also taught to be slow to take offence.  Do children today repeat the rhyme I heard as a child?  “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me.”  I wonder.  Or are our children taught today that there is great reward in being the sensitized “victim” of someone else’s “offensive” words?  Where do we find freedom in that?

Of Warming Planets and Cooling Economies

Did you notice when the Obama Administration paused in its ballyhooing about global warming?  President Obama and his officials had been busily hustling the warming of the planet and its attendant disasters—which they insist can only be fixed by increasing government control of our lives, from birthing to breathing.  The President was in Florida, blaming the future hurricane season—which has not yet happened—on global warming.  “The best climate scientists in the world are telling us that extreme weather events like hurricanes are likely to become more powerful.”  What President Obama did not mention—anywhere in his speech at the National Hurricane Center in Miami—was that the scientists predicted a “below-normal” hurricane season for 2015.  Was that mercy because of or in spite of global warming? 

Perhaps we should not blame the President for leaving that little item of information out, since for each of the last several years the cited “best climate scientists” (whoever they are) had predicted extraordinarily active and destructive hurricane seasons.  Since each season turned out to be unusually mild, the official forecasters have now changed their tune, putting themselves solidly in-sync with recent trends.  Do not put yourself at risk with a long investment on it either way. 

As for global warming, however, the President and those who say they agree with him insist that the debate is over (in either science or a free nation can the debate ever really be over?), meaning that it is unacceptable to disagree with them.  If you can’t say something calamitous, then don’t say anything at all.

Then, suddenly and quite unexpectedly, the global warming talk stopped.  There was a mercifully, if brief, moratorium on warming warnings.  Instead of predicted calamity, a real calamity was at hand that required some ‘splaining.  The most recent report on the nation’s economic growth was announced.  Not only had growth slowed, as measured by government number crunchers, the economy had actually declined in the first 3 months of 2015.  That seemed to come as a surprise to no one who is either without a job or working in a job that is something less than the job held before 2009.  But it was unwelcome news to the Administration that has been working on economic revival for going on seven years.

Instead of global warming, the Administration needed cold weather to blame for the decline in economic activity during January, February, and March.  The lead official White House explanative was, “harsh winter weather”.  I did not make this up, and you are not supposed to notice how convenient White House excuses are.  It was better that global warming talk was cooled for a moment lest people recognize the contradictions in the official propaganda and begin to wonder whether White House policies were working.

Winter weather is not a novel excuse for failed government programs.  The old Soviet Union blamed repeated crop failures on harsh winters (in Russia?  Who knew?).  The similarity in excuses used by the Obama White House and the Soviet Politburo is not accidental.  Central planners can survive only if they have at the ready a list of excuses of things beyond their control.  The list could be a long one, since in the end there is not very much about the economy that central planners can control, if control means making things go the way intended.  To quote the character Jayne Cobb, in Serenity, “what you plan and what takes place ain’t ever been exactly similar.”

Of Demagogues and Big Problems

One of the common tricks of demagogues, as cheap as it is common, is to denounce in high dander something for being “Big,”—“bad” because it is “Big.” Some of the recent targets have been Big Banks, Big Pharma (the drug companies), Big Oil, Big Insurance, and Big Business in general.  The target is apparently chosen for its relation to the prescription that the demagogue already has in mind.  Invariably the prescription involves granting more power to the demagogue, sometimes ceded from the freedoms of the targeted Big, but not infrequently taken from the liberty of the people who are somehow harmed by the Big, who are to be somehow made better by being less free.

Obamacare is one example, Big Insurance, Big Pharma, and Big Medicine all denounced to some degree in the effort to generate popular support to pass the legislation.  In the end, as more and more people are recognizing, it is individual choice that has been lost, personal freedoms to choose doctors, medical plans, and available treatments (along with substantial sums of money) that have been taken, passed on to big bureaucracies identified by the demagogues.

Demagogues on left and right and even in the middle resort to this device of denouncing Big Bad, because it resonates with many people who do not consider themselves “Big” anything.  We all can feel intimidated by something in our lives and experiences bigger than ourselves, making us all potentially susceptible to the demagogue’s pandering.  It is also a favorite device of demagogues, because it does not require much thought or creativity to make the anti-Big speech.  It seems almost required that the demagogue at some point refer to the Big Target as “Goliath” and modestly identify himself or herself with “David.”  That tired jape is now getting to be about 3,000 years old, but demagogues think that their audiences just cannot get enough of it.

To be sure, there are some cases where being big is a good thing and some things that can be too big to be good.  It all has to do with why they are big and perhaps how they got that way.  Big savings are usually good.  The Grand Canyon is big and magnificent, and I would say that the Empire State Building is, too, at least as I behold it.  On the other hand, big debts are to be avoided, big pits can be dangerous, and the L Tower in Toronto is an eyesore in my estimation (though I will acknowledge that others could be fond of it). 

Government can be too big or too small, depending on what it does with our rights and freedoms.  There are governments too small to promote and protect freedom, while there are many—most—that are too big, and ever increasing at the expense of individual rights, freedoms, and opportunities.  That includes governments that are big enough to help their cronies become bigger by robbing the competition and the public.  Businesses that are big because of government favor would be better for everyone if they lost the government favor and let competition, efficiency, and customer choices determine how big they should be. 

Some are just big because they grew that way.  Is Microsoft or Apple too big?  I do not know, and neither do you.  Exposed to the full discipline of the free market they will be the right size, and so will their competitors.  What is the right size for banks in the United States?  I do not know, and again neither do you nor does anyone else.  The more that they are exposed to market forces, the sooner we will get the best answer, which I expect will be along the lines of “many sizes and shapes” in order to match the many sizes and shapes and needs of businesses, families, and individuals who rely on banks for financial services.  Free competition in open markets has the power to right size commercial enterprises.    

A word of caution.  Part of the success of the war on Big consists in making the listeners feel small and helpless—unless rescued and led by the fearless demagogue.  Besides belittling most people, the demagogue’s device diverts attention from the fact that just about everyone is part of something Big, a Big that may eventually be the demagogue’s next target.  Maybe your church will one day be considered too “Big.”  Or maybe the industry in which you happen to work will become a “Big” target, the town or region where you live, your race or your ethnic group, your savings and investments, the cars or trucks that you drive, your appetite, your use of water, the size of the lot of your house, the wealth of your nation.  All of these, and many others, have already been used by demagogues in their Big harangues.  The demagogue’s insatiable appetite for power never has enough targets.  He or she is always looking for more.

Sometimes there is a kernel of something genuinely amiss in the demagogue’s Big complaint.  Often, when you boil down the genuine substance of any of the complaints to the hard facts, it is hard to discover what is the Big Deal—at least in the problem.  The Big Deal is to be found in the solution, which is what the demagogue is really after.  Were the Popes in Rome really controlling the lives and governments of England in the time of Henry VIII?  No, but the solution of confiscating Catholic Church properties and awarding them to the King’s cronies was a very Big Deal.  The Nazi demagogues in Germany played the same game with their own people, the German Jews, and with their property and possessions. 

The demagogue’s solutions, resting upon emotion and panic, seldom solve anything and often lead to more problems.  The Climate Wars—one year the coming ice age, the next year global warming, today just climate “change”—is an example we have all seen unfold, inflicting untold billions of dollars of costs while enriching favored cronies, but which in even the most enthusiastic promises of the demagogues will do little to affect the climate in reality in our lifetimes.

The next time you hear a public figure fume about something being Big, carefully inquire into and focus upon what he or she is after.  You may be a target just Big enough.

Of Minorities and Society

The saddest chapters of history chronicle the breakdown of human society.  Rights are abused, the innocent—if innocence is allowed to exist—are trampled.  Poverty, hatred, violence, and uncontrolled human passion prevail.  Destruction and degradation, physical and moral, replace human progress.

All society, except that of master to slave, relies upon an element of free association.  Societies may have more or less elements of coercion as well, but it is the element of free association that allows the society to continue, that motivates its members to acquiesce in or even encourage the society’s continuation.  Free, voluntary association is what gives a society its legitimacy.  Without it, there is no society, just a group of people ruled by one coterie of thugs or another. 

Cooperation in society cannot be taken for granted.  When it is, when free cooperation, instead of being nurtured and encouraged, is replaced by coercive rules and compulsion, particularly rules and compulsion designed to benefit some at the expense of others, society declines, people interact more by will of others than by their own volition.  With time either the situation is redressed or the society disintegrates, often to be conquered from the outside when its internal strength has turned to weakness.

In its latter years imperial China was prey to numerous foreign incursions because its society was a mighty empty shell, old traditions surrounding an empire of competing warlords.  Ancient Greece, which twice when united proved too much for the Persian empire, became relatively easy prey to the Romans after the ties of Greek society had become tired and weak.  Rome, in its turn, after a thousand years, was enormously wealthy but mightily weak in the internal strength to repel the roaming barbarians, vibrant societies powerful in their own internal cohesion.  Much of Africa, Asia, and Latin America today remains mired in poverty from the inability of relatively young countries to develop cooperative societies that encourage the generation of wealth and its application to promote prosperity for the present and for the future.

With cooperation at the core of successful society, one would think that democracies must be the most successful.  History records otherwise.  There are no historical examples of a successful democracy, at least not one that lasted for long enough to matter.  Like a match set to paper, democracies flare up brightly into power and glory but all too soon die away to ashes. 

The problem with democracies has been that all too quickly the majority in the democracy learns that it can become wealthy by robbing the minority, under camouflage of statutes and government.  That only lasts until either the minority successfully rebels, becomes a majority in its turn, or the wealth of the minority is exhausted.  In reaction, the majority may seek to preserve its advantages by yielding to a dictator—a “mouth” for the majority—to govern in the name of the majority to discern and express its will.  Few of these dictators have resisted the temptation to wear the mask of the majority to govern for the benefit of themselves and their cronies.  That has been the case for every communist government, without exception.   

 

But, is it not right and just for the majority to prevail?  Perhaps, but to prevail over what?  Everything?  Consider:  if majority rule is applied to deprive the minority of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, why should the minority cooperate?  All that such society offers them is slavery, unrequited labor and service to fill another’s belly and pockets.  In a pure democracy, there is no check on majority avarice, no refuge for the minority.  The majority must always have its way.

Republics, however, are built upon a foundation of minority rights.  Republican governments are granted only limited powers, exercised by representatives of the people, within boundaries beyond which the government may not go.  A written constitution serves to enshrine and strengthen those rights against violation by the majority.  The system gives a stake to all—not just the current rulers—in the continuation and strengthening of the society.  No democracy, hereditary monarchy, or dictatorship can provide that.

In a nation as great and diverse as the United States everyone is part of a minority.  Whether we consider age, ethnic background, religion, geography, culture, profession, or a multitude of other distinctions, we are a host of minorities.  We can only come together and remain as a nation, strong and vibrant, if we are confident of protection in our minority rights, for protecting minority rights in America means protecting everyone’s rights.  That is why the Founders proposed and the nation embraced a Republic formed on a federal structure of divided and limited government.

In that context, what are we to make of the current direction of American society?  Are we preserving the Republic?  Does our society feel like it is coming together?  Recent public opinion polls find that more than 60% of Americans believe the nation to be going in the wrong direction.  In another poll, a mere 22% believe that the current government rules with the consent of the governed. 

What is the national political leadership doing about this?  We have a President who aggressively pursues a variety of programs that have in common the taking of wealth from one minority segment of the nation to reward others.  These wealth transfers are lionized for the undenied purpose of political and electoral advantage for the President and his supporters. 

You will recognize the pattern.  A crisis is discovered by the President, and an industry or group is demonized in public speeches and echoed in the establishment media as causing the problem and/or standing in the way of its solution.  A plan is announced that involves confiscations from the demonized industry or group to fund benefices bestowed on Administration favorites.

Consider a few examples of many.  Global warming is hailed as an imminent crisis with disastrous consequences; the coal, oil, and gas industries are identified as the foes of progress; and a variety of taxes and other restrictive policies are proposed, together with planned subsidies for businesses and companies favored by the White House.  Banks are declared to be the nefarious forces behind the recent recession, new laws and regulations are applied that confiscate billions of dollars from the industry, much of which is then channeled to hedge funds and other political allies of the administration.  Some millions of people are discovered to be without health insurance, doctors and the health insurance industry—among others—are fingered as being at the root of the problem, so a major overhaul of the entire structure of the health system is enacted that favors some at the expense of others.  Administration cronies receive lucrative contracts to develop and administer the new system.  There are many other examples, large and small, in education, welfare, housing, transportation, law enforcement, and many other government programs.

Is there any wonder that there is gridlock in the national government, when policy after policy is aimed at transferring wealth from some to reward others?  Where is the room for cooperation and compromise, when the issue is how much of your family’s wealth is to be taken and given to someone else?  The Roman Republic fell into gridlock after decades of appeals to mass acclaim for schemes of popular distribution of public plunder.  It ended in the triumph of the Caesars, and later their eventual fall to the barbarians.  It is perilous to abuse social comity. 

President Obama has announced the transfer of wealth to be the chief focus for the remaining three years of his administration.  Can our society weather that?

Of Aliens in Washington and the National Symbols

Driving into Washington, D.C., each day, it is easy to become blindly accustomed to the rich symbols that delight and inspire the more infrequent visitor.  Occasionally, such as when the choke of traffic allows reflective moments, or the morning light or evening illuminations stimulate more meditative inspiration, even the hardened local can again be moved by the monuments of the nation’s capital.

One such recent morning, as reflections led to marveling at our wonderful and unique nation, and musing followed musing, I was struck by how out of line the Obama Administration is with all of these symbols and what they mean.  The differences between the symbols and the resident reality are not minor.  It is as if some group of aliens had taken dominion of the Capital of Freedom.

Consider an example a mere few days old.  In Barack Obama’s most recent weekly radio address he made the following statement.  Read it carefully.

It’s time to build a nation that lives up to the ideals that so many Americans have fought for—a nation where they can realize the dream they sacrificed to protect.

The address was entitled, “Honoring Our Nation’s Service Members and Military Families”.  Its main thrust was to provide that honor through more federal spending on “roads and runways and ports.”  Apparently, President Obama’s view is that this is what our soldiers, sailors, and airmen have been fighting for, or as he said, “That’s how we can honor our troops.”

Back to the highlighted quote, however, the rhetorical apogee of the speech.  Aside from the President’s revelation that he had tarmac in mind when he envisioned the dreams of our veterans, there is the declaration that, “It’s time to build a nation”.  Why would the President of the United States of America declare that now is the time to build our nation?  What does he consider to have happened in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was boldly adopted?  Was it not then that the building of the nation began?  What does he believe that Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and the many other Founders did?  What does he consider was the purpose of the Constitution if not “to form a more perfect Union”?  Does he believe that America has been waiting for Barack Obama to begin the building? 

It is hard to escape the impression that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are in meaningful ways alien to the current President, that he does not recognize what they wrought.  For President Obama, now is the time to build the nation.  Apparently, he does not like what he sees. What kind of alternative nation does Barack Obama want to build? 

I suspect that what my father fought for in two wars was akin to the ideals embodied in our national symbols, not more government construction projects.  I doubt that in France, Germany, or Korea he ever spent a single moment imagining that he was risking his life for new highways.

Which brings me back to my musings on the highways of the federal city.  I see the Lincoln Memorial, in which the words from President Lincoln’s last address to the nation are inscribed, proclaiming malice toward none while seeking to unite a nation and bind up the nation’s wounds.  I contrast that with the current President and his long list of those he labels enemies:  big oil, big banks, big insurance, big medicine, business in general, the world’s financial center in New York, people of strong religious conviction, among others.  Instead of unifying the nation, it is impossible to avoid his constant efforts to divide the nation into racial, ethnic, and interest groups, as if the citizens of the United States are black, or white, or rich, or poor, first and Americans second.

From almost anywhere in Washington you can see the Washington Monument, soaring over 500 feet high.  The monument is simple and unadorned, symbolizing the man declared by mourners at his death as, “First in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen,” who set the pattern for freedom protected by limited government, where government office was a service to the nation and its people.  In little more than the last three years we have instead experienced an unprecedented accretion of power to the government in Washington.  Government workers make decisions reaching into nearly every aspect of people’s lives, even as the President declares that the achievements of individuals are as much or more the work of government than the fruits of their own efforts.  Rejecting the example of George Washington, who turned aside a crown and walked away from generalship and public office into quiet retirement, President Obama fosters an imperial cult of personality, where the light of every achievement, real or imaginary, is focused on himself.

Ringing the dome of the Jefferson Memorial are Jefferson’s words, “I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”  Today we have a presidency filthy with politically correct speech, that pounces on any words of opponents that can be made to appear at odds with the official doctrines of the administration.  Instead of free speech and open debate, the President declares that for his priorities, such as global warming, health care, financial legislation, “the debate is over.”

In H.G. Wells’ classic science fiction story, The War of the Worlds, the invading aliens are at last destroyed by simple bacteria in the air and water that men breathe and drink, defeated, “after all man's devices had failed, by the humblest things that God, in his wisdom, has put upon this earth.”  Was our Declaration of Independence correct that God has placed similar protections in our society, the heavenly endowed unalienable rights of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”?  Will these simple, fundamental rights will out and preserve our nation from our present alien occupation?  They may, if we employ them as the Founders did.

Of Liberty and Barackracy

When President Barack Obama leaves office, he will leave Americans with less liberty than they had when he took office. Absorbing many liberties that Americans had, making decisions for Americans that they used to make for themselves, will be a vast array of new government agencies, the new Barackracy.

I chose the term “Barackracy” with care. It ends with a suffix similar to that in “democracy.” Democracy means rule or government by the people. Barackracy is similar to the well-known term, “bureaucracy.” That is not accidental. Bureaucracy was a pejorative term, coined in early modern times to criticize the French government, which had become by and large run buy unelected officials in government agencies, the bureaus. At the time, elective governments—and indeed, constitutions—in France would come and go with amazing frequency, but the bureaucracy and the bureaucrats who ran the operations of government would always be there and would carry on largely undisturbed. For much of what mattered in day-to-day life, France was ruled by the bureaus.

The bureaucracy helped to make France what it is today. More and more decisions over a wide range of matters in the ordinary lives of ordinary people were made by the bureaus. The Soviet Union learned from the French model and could probably not have been created without drawing upon that example. The Soviets expanded upon the French model, but the Soviets did not invent it. Even with the Soviet Union dissolved, the Russians are having a very difficult time establishing the liberties of the people, because the Russian bureaucracy survives at the core of the current Russian government.

When the United States was created we had no bureaucracy. In the early years of the Constitution we had only three departments of government, the State Department, the Treasury Department, and the War Department. These three departments focused on the three acknowledged purposes of the federal government, to conduct our international relations, provide for the common defense, and have a national system of revenues to pay for it all.

Instead of bureaucracy, we had liberty, protected for a time by a federal system of government that dispersed governmental power among the states and within a system of checks and balances. The founding fathers had already seen how government limited freedom and how government tended to grow if left unchecked.

Each order from a bureaucrat limits liberty. The decisions of bureaucrats, operating on behalf of the government, have the authority of law and occupy the field where individual decisions used to operate. And, unlike private decisions, the mandates of the bureaucracy are backed by force. Several decades ago Alan Greenspan described the power of bureaucratic decisions this way:

At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun.
(Alan Greenspan, “The Assault on Integrity,” in Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p.119)

At the core of each proposal by Barack Obama to change America lie several new government offices and agencies that arrogate to themselves the power to make decisions that so far have been made by the people themselves. In the Obama “Cap and Trade” plan designed to save us from global warming (or now, “climate change” since it is no longer clear whether the earth is getting warmer or colder) are various agencies that will decide how people can use energy, what they can buy, how their products are made, and what they pay for them. The healthcare legislation will have an unnumbered collection of new government agencies to decide who gets to buy health insurance and from whom, at what price, with what features, covering which illnesses, under which treatments. The proposed new Barackracy will include new agencies to determine what financial services can be offered to you, who can offer them, and on what terms. It will also decide which banks and other financial firms can survive and which ones should be bailed out. There are other plans, too.

In each case, liberty is replaced by government decisions, made by people who are never up for election, accountable to no one. The Senate sponsor of the financial Barackracy bill, Senator Chris Dodd, said that with a new financial consumer regulator it will no longer be necessary to go back to Congress for new consumer legislation—the new Barackracy will have that legislative power. What if you do not like what the new agency does? Or, just what if you would like to decide for yourself? That liberty would be gone.

In the days ahead the power of the Constitution created to preserve the liberties of the people will be tested. The surrendering of our nation—described by Abraham Lincoln as possessing a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”— over to rule by the new Barackracy certainly seems to be inconsistent with both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution. We will look next to the courts to uphold the Constitution and the liberty it was established to protect.

Of Obama and Ethelred the Unready

Arguably the worst king of England was Ethelred the Unready. He was unready to rule his kingdom, he was unready to promote its prosperity, he was unready to repel the invader. The chief manifestation of his unreadiness was his inability or unwillingness to recognize reality. Reality eventually caught up with him—as it always does—and with his kingdom—as it always does for those subject to unready rulers.

The current President of the United States, Barack Obama, may be working hard to earn himself the title of Obama the Unready. The evidence is accumulating.

For months, the novice commander-in-chief has been at a loss to know how to respond to the urgent recommendations of the field commanders in Afghanistan. They have been pleading to increase the troop levels. The added troops are needed to respond to increased enemy activity. Unwilling to say yes or no, the President vacillates while American soldiers die because they are stretched too thin. He seems to have forgotten that American soldiers under President Clinton were similarly sacrificed in another poor corner of the world—Somalia—only because Clinton did not provide enough troops to do the job. Rather than decrease casualties, insufficient troop strength increases casualties, soldiers who would not die if given enough support to overwhelm the enemy. This week the White House announced that President Obama is still unready to decide on troop strengths for the mission in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the Taliban is not waiting for him to make up his mind.

Also this week, President Obama gave a little speech about the economy. It was hard to miss the sense of frustration and perplexity in his remarks, made quickly as the Nobel laureate left town to seek more praise from his adoring foreign fans. He admitted that unemployment remains high, despite his economic program. He admitted that employers are reluctant to hire new people. He just does not seem to know why. His solution is to call a conference of economic talkers in December to talk about it. He remains unready to do something about his economic plans and government policies that are making it riskier for employers to take on more employees. Faced with half a trillion dollars in new taxes (many focused on small businesses), higher health care expenses from the trillion dollar “reform” program, new environmental plans to cool off the globe by cooling off economic growth, and dozens of other new plans to make it harder for businessmen to succeed, businessmen are reluctant to hire new people that they will later have to let go. All the while, the natural tendency for the economy to recover is weakened.

Consumer spending remains suppressed, while the Obama Administration and its friends in Congress pursue policies that make consumer credit more expensive and harder to get. Congress this year, with the Obama Administration cheering on, passed new credit card laws that make it difficult for lenders to have riskier borrowers pay higher rates. The result is that everyone gets to pay higher rates. Predictably, consumer credit declined by 15% in September and shows little sign of getting better. As we approach the holiday season, so important for the success of retailers, the Obama Administration and its Congressional allies are busily making it tougher for banks to run their debit card programs. Expect more debit cards denied at the checkout lines. Also expect the pace of store closures, already growing faster than swine flu, to continue to grow. Seen any empty storefronts at shopping centers lately? Be ready to see more, even as President Obama convenes his economic talk show in December.

Not to forget swine flu, the Obama Administration was eager all year to pump up the worry about a swine flu epidemic, in hopes that it might frighten people into supporting healthcare legislation. In the meantime, the Obama Administration’s health officials, who are heavily involved in development and distribution of vaccines (lawsuits that plague the medical industry have driven most vaccine manufacturers out of the business), were ready to promise but unready to deliver swine flu vaccine. Expect more of the same, of promises that do not meet actual needs as government becomes even more involved in regulating healthcare. Service and speed are what most people look for when they are sick, but service and speed are not what government programs are known to provide—any government program.

It should be no surprise that President Obama is not ready for the growing challenges of being President. Like Ethelred, Barack Obama had little training for the job. Governing has not gotten easier in the thousand years since Ethelred disgraced the throne of England. It is not getting any easier for Barack Obama. Fortunately for America, we do not invest all power in a king.

Of Watermelons and Conservationists

Notice how the prescriptions of the radical environmentalists trend in the same direction: more government controls over private life. Certainly the global warming agenda is all about how government needs to control numerous aspects of our lives, from the way we travel (cars bad, public transportation good), what we eat (meat bad, vegetables good), the comfort in our homes (warm bad, cold good—except in the summer, when it is the other way around), to family size (three children bad, no children good).

If these people just limited themselves to preaching their ideas we could debate them and let people make a choice—which invites the risk that these proposals would be exposed as being irrelevant or even counterproductive to the achievement of the environmental purposes in which they are wrapped—but instead these environmentalists loudly call for elaborate government programs to force compliance with their schemes. It seems that it is the solution, the governmental mandates and controls, that matters far more than the real environmental issues. The enviro-advocates routinely reject better solutions that do not involve government intrusion. For good reason such state controllers in environmental clothing have earned the nickname, “Watermelons”: green on the outside, but red on the inside. These are not seedless Watermelons, as I would add that the Watermelons’ solutions rest on the seedy old notion that government knows best—the monarchist worldview that the American Revolution resisted and that the American experiment has in practice so often refuted.

I suppose that these environmentalists are eager to rely upon the force of government, because they seek to inhibit some very basic human endeavors, such as earning a living, bearing children, and breathing. The radical enviro agenda destroys jobs, sees people (and their offspring) as the source of all environmental problems, and has named the chief gas people exhale as they breathe—carbon dioxide—public pollutant number one. Only the coercive powers of government could hope to curb action that is such a natural part of life and living.

This Watermelon formula is no accident. The more common the activity that must be controlled, the more sweeping the governmental controls that are called for. And, the more undefined—or even indefinable—the problem, the easier it is to justify nearly any governmental action served up as a solution. Global warming serves the pro-government agenda of the Watermelons very well.

This is by no means an argument to ignore the environment. Care for the environment is as old as the Garden of Eden. It was one of the first commandments given to our first parents. “And I, the Lord God, took the man, and put him in the Garden of Eden, to dress it, and to keep it.” (Moses 3:15) Such counsel has been echoed through modern prophets. In 1833 the Lord revealed that the earth’s resources are “to be used with prudence and thanksgiving.” (Doctrine and Covenants 89:11)

This was not, however, man-is-the-problem environmentalism. Man is the focal point of the world, the reason for its creation. The Lord’s counsel is make the most of the earth and do not pollute your nest. This concept lies at the heart of what has been called conservation. Conservationists recognize that the world is a stewardship entrusted to man to be used for man’s best advantage. Again, as the Lord has revealed to modern prophets,

all things which come of the earth, in the season thereof, are made for the benefit and the use of man, both to please the eye and to gladden the heart; yea, for food and for raiment, for taste and for smell, to strengthen the body and to enliven the soul. And it pleaseth God that he hath given all these things unto man; for unto this end were they made to be used, with judgment, not to excess, neither by extortion. (Doctrine and Covenants 59:18-20)

The difference is that to the Watermelons, people are a problem, and the fewer the better. The conservationist sees the environment as a treasure house to be managed for the benefit of man, and when subjected to the creativity and wisdom of the mind of man can become an inexhaustible source of increasing wealth and benefit.

The Malthusians and their modern disciples have been predicting the environmental doom of mankind for centuries, and those unlucky enough to have followed their prescriptions have found doom and destruction. Whenever we have trusted instead to the creed of the conservationists who would manage the world’s resources in line with human incentives and martial them for human benefit, the result has been increasing wealth and welfare, just as God intended for His children.