Mainstream Media Begin to Challenge Obama's "Reformer" Image in Wake of Sestak Job Offer Scandal

Finally, the mainstream media pipes up on the Sestak "job-gate" scandal.

Washington Post: Lack of Sunlight Over Mr. Sestak's Claims

"This response would hardly have satisfied those who were upset during the previous administration about the firing of U.S. attorneys. If there was nothing improper, why not all that sunlight Mr. Obama promised?"


NY Times: For Sestak Matter, a 'Trust Us' from the White House

"Even if the conversations were perfectly legal, as the White House claims, the situation challenges President Obama’s efforts to present himself as a reformer who will fix a town of dirty politics. And the refusal to even discuss what was discussed does not advance the White House’s well-worn claim to being “the most transparent” in history."

Now people other than conservatives can respectably discuss it at their cocktail parties. What I humbly call "Carolan's Law of Liberal Credence": "No liberal shall believe anything a conservative says until it is repeated six months later by their favorite liberal pundit or publication."

"Philosophers Shouldn't Run for Office," Except Obama

I can understand why people are upset with Rand Paul. I think they are misunderstanding his intentions, which are not racist. But I can understand how they could have that reaction.

From what I have read in the Twittersphere and in blogs, etc. people angry with Paul quite often show that they misunderstand the very nature of the crisis of southern segregation, which was not a spontaneous exercise in free dis-association, but a government mandated and enforced reality, under Jim Crow, etc. (Separate public facilities, anti-miscegenation laws, etc.) Laws which violated basic rights under the constitution, which were helping to integrate the races. Laws which were supported by a band of vigilantes in a secret society. So, why did this require laws, and "secret" enforcers?

I still think it is possible to have a reasonable discussion about what actually happened during that crisis and learn lessons from it. About lawmaking. The same way people still watch D.W. Griffith's "The Birth of a Nation" to understand the reality of political propaganda, and how the Klan flourished.

If a senatorial candidate can't "philosophize" on the job, what is he or she doing running for the United States Senate anyway, which is supposed to be an aristocratic, deliberative body?

Which is why I don't understand someone like Chris Matthews going on the Jay Leno show and saying "philosophers shouldn't run for office."

Matthews, it seems to me, thinks politics should be basically for the enjoyment of him and his beer-drinking buddies. Like sports; to watch the instant replays, talk about tactics and tell colorful stories about old Irish pols like his former boss, Thomas "Tip" O'Neill.

I used to enjoy Hardball, but I am finding Matthews' approach to politics growing shallower by the day. Perhaps he's been hanging around Keith Olbermann a little too long.

Anyway, who then was this guy (see below), who gave Matthews that thrill up his leg? You know, the guy who wants to "transform" America by eliminating the Founders' paradigm of negative rights?

I guess you can only "philosophize" about America if you're going in one direction -- which is away from the philosophy of the highly-philosophical Founders.

Tea Party, Libertarianism Do Not Equal "Old South"

If First Amendment advocates say we must tolerate the cartoonish reality of Nazi and Klan street marches in order to protect our freedom of speech, are these advocates all inherently, secretly Nazis and Klansmen?

The answer, of course, is "No."

So, why then are libertarian- or "classical liberal"-minded advocates of property rights and free association, such as Rand Paul, automatically deemed "racist?"

Freedom sometimes generates cartoonish side effects. It doesn't mean those who advocate freedom advocate on behalf of the cartoons.

You could say that in regard to property rights and free association all of these things are "settled" questions, because the racist past of America was a terrible time that we would rather not revisit.

I agree. I would rather not revisit it.

However, today, because the narrative is that the expansion of federal government power then was an unqualified success, the federal government is empowered to address and "fix" now pretty much any thing the public (as interpreted by our legislators) deems cartoonish and unfair, using the power to tax and regulate property.

So, where does the growth of government (including all costly post hoc attempts to fix previous attempts) stop? What will be the total cost, in dollars and in freedom, not only in property, but even in speech (the "fairness" doctrine, etc.?) Name a "social problem" or even annoyance and today the government is empowered to "fix" it. (From hate speech to -- in my home state senator Schumer's balliwick -- the cost of carry on luggage and annoying ATM fees.)

This is why the Tea Party exists. To challenge that old narrative, and challenge the growing progressive costs in dollars and freedom. And Rand Paul, to his credit and his discomfort, zeroed in on the hot spot problem. He is now paying a heavy price, personally and politically.

You can attempt to smear the Tea Party movement by comparing it to the Old South. But if you look around the world, you see hundreds of governments empowered to do the very same things: "fix" society's ills, with sometimes catastrophic results in terms of debt, economic decline and social unrest.

When Ronald Reagan called America the "shining city on a hill" he didn't believe there weren't some ugly things going on inside that city.

Like it or not, at some point we will have to look back at what we did wrong in the middle of our success in the 1960s. Or else, the government's intrusion into the private sphere will just simply grow and grow, and America will begin to look like every other steadily declining socialist nation.

The Rand Paul Imbroglio Shows America Needs Less Deliberation

No doubt the Rand Paul debate of the past few days has produced a few "cringe-worthy" moments. Whenever a candidate raises arguments about previous law that allow his opponents to suggest he is in favor of segregation, or is racist, well, that can soften the backbone of even the strongest candidates, their political consultants and political fellow travelers.

Paul's backpedaling since has also been somewhat cringe-worthy, creating the impression that he, like Connecticut senate candidate Richard Blumenthal, is only willing to say things to friendly audiences who might not seriously think more about or investigate his utterances.

But better that than the alternative, some potential allies might say. Rich Lowry, for example -- along with other commentators at National Review -- derides Paul's original discussion with Rachel Maddow, et al as a politically foolish theoretical exercise. Says Lowry:

"It turns out that a Senate campaign does not offer the same friendly confines for the discussion of libertarian doctrine as a seminar at the Ayn Rand Institute."

Lowry goes on to call Paul a "problem" for the GOP.

The problem it seems, is not that Paul's a racist. He clearly is not.

It's his ability to be labeled a racist by the opposition.

If only Rand Paul hadn't come along with his theoretical discussion about property rights, the left would never have called conservatives and libertarians "racist."

Indeed, as I watched Rachel Maddow smile that smirky smile last night, and chirp that one day later Rand Paul looked like the usual flip-flopping politician (trying to hide his racism, no doubt!) the problem of our country occurred to me:

Too many theoretical discussions!

We all know that theoretical exercises are dragging our country (and the GOP) down. Too many long, ponderous discussions of federal power, and the fine points of law in the Senate until all hours. Too many television talk show debates, commercially uninterrupted, full of historical consciousness, that show how property rights can be eroded to dangerous levels, just like free speech rights, leading to massive and costly attempts by the federal government to right every wrong from 50,000 feet.

Forget all that "theoretical" nonsense and "libertarian doctrine!" I mean, we can't get anything done!

Why risk upsetting the public when there are elections to be won?

There have to be other ways to defeat massive expansion of the federal government than actually talking about how massive expansions of the federal government come about.

Sometimes It's Right to Debate the Past

Libertarians are often accused of spending too much time debating the past (a political rather than philosophical concern).

But, sometimes it makes sense to debate the past, particularly if there are salient facts that change the discussion significantly.

Reason magazine has an excellent blog post about the nascent controversy over Rand Paul's views on property rights and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, mentioned in my previous post.

Author Damon Root makes some important points about how property rights afforded African-Americans protection against discrimination by government. And when the government decided to simply ignore those.

From the post:

"It’s also important to acknowledge that economic rights are not in some inherent conflict with civil rights. In fact, we have significant historical evidence showing that legally enforced property rights (and other forms of economic liberty) actually undermined the Jim Crow regime. Most famously, the NAACP won its first Supreme Court victory in 1917 by arguing that a residential segregation law was a racist interference with property rights under the 14th Amendment.

"Finally, keep in mind that Plessy v. Ferguson, the notorious 1896 Supreme Court decision that enshrined “separate but equal” into law and become a symbol of the Jim Crow era, dealt with a Louisiana law that forbid railroad companies from selling first-class tickets to blacks. That’s not a market failure, it’s a racist government assault on economic liberty."

Rand Paul Bending or Breaking Under Charges of Racism, etc.?

Odd exchange last night on CNN between Rand Paul, the GOP senate nominee from Kentucky, and host John King.

King pressed Paul on a number of questions, particularly on whether or not he would dismantle the Department of Education, and Paul, it seems to me, danced around that question a little, and some others.

CNN went ahead anyway, after the question was asked, and attributed to Paul in the caption that he did seek to eliminate the DOE and the Dept. of Agriculture. A little odd journalistically, I think.

Anyway, I suspect to Paul's supporters this behavior is excusable, because they see him under attack by liberal media. Paul is libertarian, but as his profile has been raised he now appears to be feeling the sting of responses to his positions on federal legislation, articulated in front of the more critical audiences on NPR, CNN and MSNBC.

But after the similar constant beat down that occurs on the national stage, would this same habit endear him to anyone years from now? I don't know how his father, Texas congressman Ron Paul, has withstood the onslaught for so long.

Rand has to practice his responses a little more for the national media I think, particularly on the federal departments. "The correct answer is," to borrow a trope from TV commentator John McLaughlin, that while these departments seem to place decision making in the hands of trained experts, they often concentrate more decision making in the hands of those with less knowledge about the overall education situation. Does anyone really believe that Head Start or No Child Left Behind are effective?

Devolution of political power to the local level outsources work on many more smaller decisions to MORE people. This is the paradox of large federal interventions. It places more power in the hands of fewer (self-interested) people, reducing the overall information and aggregate motivation available to solve social problems.

In a recent exchange, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow pressed Rand Paul on his views about federal civil rights legislation. Joan Walsh, the liberal editor of Salon magazine, makes great hay about Paul's "demolishment" at the hands of Maddow (video included). And today, the Twittersphere is full of comments about how Paul "opposed the Civil Rights Act," "supports segregation" and is "racist." Google Rand Paul and you see additional headlines asserting that Paul is defending discrimination.

Whereas, Paul explicitly said in the interview (!) that he would have voted for all but one part of the Civil Rights Act, he finds racism abhorrent and that segregation was actually a government policy and misuse of the law. I agree with him on all these points.

Paul acquitted himself reasonably well here in this one interview.

The problem for many liberals is that they will see in Paul what they want to see. Which is what they want to see in most people who want to protect property rights and limit government power, the core of Paul's philosophy: a closet racist and homophobe. All because he opposes a certain means of achieving a social objective. (A rather heavy-handed means with numerous unintended consequences.)

For many on the left, that the 1960s were a triumph of progressive legislation is a "settled question." The 1960s are never to be discussed with any critical eye again, because it was the age of Abraham, Martin and John. Unfortunately, libertarians keep cropping up.

But these libertarians often struggle to articulate the organic link between the expansion of federal power then -- however well intentioned it was -- and consequences being felt today in ever expanding, intrusive federal action over private initiative and all its related costs and debt, and little room left for local initiative.

All while feeling the sting of being called racist, because you oppose certain aspects of legislation touching on race - which is not the same thing.

Libertarians and conservatives have to repeat it until they are blue in the face, that supporting limited government and defense of private property does not mean they endorse repugnant social behavior. Wasn't it a great liberal with progressive attitudes about women, John Stuart Mill, who argued that social sanction rather than legislation should play an important role in behavior we find repugnant?

So, those of us who are libertarian should expect great moralizing on the part of the left this election season, and a sense of crisis that the KKK is back in town. Some don't know enough to know better. But some of those critics in the media clearly are educated enough to know better.

Rachel Maddow's parting comment to Rand Paul:

"Well, it was pretty practical to the people who had the life nearly beaten out of them trying to desegregate Walgreen's lunch counters despite these esoteric debates about what it means about ownership. This is not a hypothetical Dr. Paul."

No one says it's a hypothetical, and this is the usual posturing and playing to the left-wing audience by Maddow.

People who had the life beaten out them (and fire-hosed and attacked by dogs) had it done to them by the government. And those acts were disproportionate and already illegal and federal intervention was necessary to stop them. Paul AGREED on that much.

Maddow is smart enough to know that. But her comments were about demonizing, not actual, real discussion and journalism.

Not an exclusive province of MSNBC or left-wing media by the way. It's a pervasive risk of being a popular journalist, to play to an audience. You see the same kind of thing on FOX.

In response to certain external stimuli, journalists tend to bend and break as well.

Hugo Chavez is So Predictable

Nowhere is politics more personal than in the mind of the socialist dictator; for whom the well-being of the state equals the well-being of his own ego.

Hugo Chavez's Expropriation Binge

Serial Contradictions, or, Why President Obama Needs Press Conferences

I know a lot of people who admire and voted for President Obama. But, like Victor Davis Hanson, I assume these people also have a memory, and a sense for logical and ethical consistency.

Hanson compellingly chronicles once again in this piece the "serial contradictions" of President Obama, on everything from his own policies vs. Bush policies to the cost and impact of health care reform to how he differs from his political opposition today.

From his piece:

"The blatant hypocrisy and untruths are superimposed on a constant (it has not yet begun to let up in his second year) refrain of either “Bush did it” or “the opposition won’t let me be bipartisan.”


And all of this shows why President Obama can no longer be allowed to duck the real-time press conference, even with the likes of the White House press corps, an obsequious lot. His inconsistencies must be addressed, and reconciled, if that is possible. Otherwise, he, or we, might go mad.

Oft-Mentioned Resources for My Students

There is no doubt that I teach my mythology and philosophy classes with a heavy emphasis on personal meaning and relevance.

One of the reasons I enjoy being an adjunct rather than a full professor is because I am able to bring more "real world" experience to the classroom, hopefully to the benefit of the students, who must experience real challenges outside the shelter of the campus.

My own life experience, and the testimony of the many students whom I have had the honor to know and converse with about their own challenges, shows that life is sometimes a disorienting, difficult and dark journey. Many students, whether new to school, or returning, bring their own amazing, illuminating stories of struggle and personal growth.

I am deeply humbled by the bond I have formed with these students during the past 15 years as an adjunct. (I think after all these years that this is the only job I do anywhere near well.)

In the course of our discussions, I have often mentioned resources for them to consult. But not so often listed them. I thought I would capture a few of them here:

The Artist's Way - The official site of Julia Cameron and her important work about creativity and psychological growth. When I experience particularly dark emotions, the practice of her "morning pages" (at any hour) is very helpful in a way I cannot explain at a rational level.

Care of the Soul -- Official site of Thomas Moore, whose work I always find deeply reflective and meaningful.

In particular, I recommend his wonderful book, Dark Nights of the Soul. I have been listening to this book on audio again, and it is amazing how different sections of it are even more important to me now after teaching my mythology class. I have taught the mythology class unconsciously using Moore's expanded idea of the "liminal" experience and rites of passage; both he and I being heavily influenced by the work of anthropologist Victor Turner. All of life contains times of disorientation, sometimes at intense levels. This is not theoretical darkness. It is unique darkness for your own life, and it will hurt. From this idea and experience I have formulated my own humble notion of "generative darkness," into which we reach as we stand at its perimeter, to pull out as if from a grab bag, some great gift for the next phase of our life. (Moore's comments on sentimentality in religion have also given me new concepts with which to frame my own disorientation and unhappiness with the "sentimentality" practiced by those who chose to interpret my mother's tragic death for me, and who choose to avert their eyes from certain dark aspects of reality highlighted by the likes of Darwin and Schopenhauer.)

MichaelGelb.com -- website of author Michael Gelb, whose work had a profound influence on my during my darkest days at Computer Associates, a company where the delta between the teachings on management and the actual culture, at that time, was at least a light year.

In particular, Gelb's book "How to Think Like Leonardo da Vinci" opened my mind to the notion that we swim in a vast sea of life variables, many of which we are free to take notice of and act upon if we simply choose to. (WWLD? -- What would Leonardo do?)

Speaking of Computer Associates' dysfunctional culture, Jeff Gee was a good-natured teacher there who helped me survive the place as long as I did. His book "Super Service" was just one of those works that again taught me to become aware of the control I had over so much of my life.

For the theoretically minded, who like to take a structured, abstract approach to their own actions, there is no greater work than "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People," by Stephen Covey. Again, in an unexplainable moment of serendipity, the worst boss I ever had sent me to a management class where this book was only casually mentioned. I sought it out, and it completely changed my life. Its first chapter on being "proactive" is now required reading for my philosophy students.

The Road Less Traveled by M. Scott Peck -- the ancient lesson that life must be difficult if we are to grow, taught in a modern context.

Man's Search for Meaning - by Viktor Frankl. The great work about his survival in a Nazi concentration camp and the lessons he derived from it, which would form the basis for his theory of "logotherapy." (He has a great influence on Covey.)

Learned Optimism - an important work about cognitive therapy by Martin Seligman. His formulation of pessimism as based upon judgments we choose to make (or not make) that problems are "pervasive, permanent and personal" is, well, powerful.

The Soul's Code by James Hillman. A fascinating reflection on destiny and character, rooted in the ideas of Jung and Plato. (He was the mentor of Thomas Moore.) I intend to read more of his works.

Creativity and Madness Blog - a new resource I am exploring of late, which features thoughtful posts and links to additional resources and events.

The Supreme Court Nominee, and the Context, are Both Disturbing

If a Republican president . . .

• lashed out at television news networks, radio hosts and others for their coverage of and opinions about him
• questioned the legitimacy of the information on the Internet and the utility of the devices that provide it
• had his agencies seek to reclassify Internet Service Providers for the purposes of greater regulation and control
• and THEN nominated a friend and fellow law professor to the Supreme Court who said that the exercise of free speech is dependent on how the government calculates the social costs of that speech (!)
  

. . . would there not be great wailing, gnashing of teeth and hand-wringing across the land?

Would there not be ponderous statements from Senators about "deeply disturbing" revelations about the nominee that raise concerns about her qualification to serve on the court, and the president's overall intentions given a series of unseemly statements from the bully pulpit against political dissent?

(Let's leave aside for a moment the even larger context of the president's youthful associations with all sorts of "revolutionary" Marxist thinkers, his government taking more and more control of automakers, banks, insurance companies, etc., and his apparent disinterest in the tyranny of and crushing of political dissent by statists such as Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Castros, etc. Ex-communist James Burnham's maxim that for so-called liberals "there are no enemies on the left" seems more apropos than ever.)

Hypocrisy in politics is nothing new, nor is it restricted to the Democratic Party. However, when the people with "good intentions" are running the show apparently, tyranny, even in creeping soft forms is deemed impossible. Right up until, as the French Revolution showed, they're not running the show anymore, and their heads are in the guillotines.

But, civility and courtliness will prevail, because after all, they're all friends and colleagues in Washington.

So, Elena Kagan will be confirmed, and the creep of soft tyranny will continue.

Thoughts on Another Semester in Mythology

I'm completing my students' mythology final examination today, for them to take tomorrow.

It was an ambitious class, taught mostly from a psychological and spiritual point of view. It was all about our struggle with darkness, and its power to transform. I think I either frightened or bored the students sometimes with this talk. I dwell on this mystery all the time.

It helps to know every civilization shared the same struggles, even as it puzzles about the ultimate source of being. That is what I take away from this class, in brighter hues each time. Science goes its own way, to greater and greater reductionism. But for humanity, myth illustrates the absolute mystery of existence.

More Analysis of Presidential Rhetoric

Obama’s Good and Bad Words - Victor Davis Hanson - National Review Online

Columnist Notes Uptick in Presidential Negativity

I think Dan Henninger of the Wall Street Journal makes an excellent point. The contrast between Barack Obama the campaigner and President Obama the Manichean is dramatic. He has become, as noted below, his own Saul Alinsky, demonizing his opposition at every turn, from the State of the Union on.

Perhaps this is because VP Joe Biden, who would traditionally play this political role, is too much the happy gaffer. Or perhaps it is because this is the President's true nature; something he really enjoys, and reflects his true beliefs -- post "Hope and Change."

Such "internal demagoguery" as I call it, is surely the stock in trade of totalitarians such as Hugo Chavez and Vladimir Putin, who use it to justify their seizure of property and suspension of rights. But our country has its practitioners as well.

I stepped back from political journalism years ago because of my own tendency to take it, and make it, much too personal. It's a kind of radioactive madness that infects many in political life.