Stone's Film is a Sign of a Deep-Seated Tyrannical Temperament

Oliver Stone has a new film out praising Latin dictators. It tells us something about how virulent the seeds of tyranny are, not just among the would-be dictators, but the clients that would support them.

In "The Republic," Plato provides some wonderful insight into the origins of tyranny. He distrusted "the mob" or mass of humanity because, he argued, they will seek to organize society around base needs, and not important philosophical principles such as justice and truth. When the so-called champion of the people demands unlimited power to protect his holy mission on behalf of the mob, the nation's fate is sealed.

This lesson plays out again and again in nation after nation. We see it today in dramatic fashion in places such as Russia and Venezuela, where buffoons and thugs, running the country in the name of "the people," do quite nicely for themselves while oppressing their enemies. This is the very essence of the false notion of "justice" offered by the Sophists in the first books of "The Republic."

Yet, time and again, people ignore this lesson. Lured by personal insecurity and pessimism, and emergencies real and manufactured, people sacrifice their own freedom and protection, under a republican system of laws, in favor a "strong man" with alleged insight into the "real nature" of the emergency, and the force of will to do something about it.

The paradox is that no one man can know enough about any political or economic problem to "solve" it. Often the dictator's solutions boil down to nothing more than the imposition of his personal whim in response to his own fantastical imaginings, buttressed by masterful demagoguery.

People may not like to hear this, but Barack Obama is a smaller version of such a creature. Observe his natural tendencies of demagoguery and his clueless imaginings about the roots of our economic problems. His answer to almost every problem is more of him and his fellow travelers, the economic illiterates Pelosi and Reid.

Paradoxically, the proper answer, is, of course, more of others. Not the Republican party, with the likes of dangerous attention-cravers such as Rove and Boehner and Gingrich.  The answer is more freedom. More unleashing of the genius of the people to solve their own problems.

Obama's demagogic bellowing (about banks and other corporations - whom he negotiates deals with in secret because no one man can solve all problems) is restrained somewhat by the bars of the Constitution. A constitution he has shown himself -- like presidents before him -- willing to ignore or circumvent when he can.

He will not get to take power the way he thinks he deserves. But with each assault on the restraints on power by the constitution, (in his case by seizure of auto company assets, by health care mandate, by presidential "compensation funds") the bars weaken a little more. Setting the stage for a little more tyranny until (dare we suggest it in polite society???) the bars break.

Blindness to subtle changes in the constitution of freedom are somewhat understandable. As economists in the "public choice" school have observed, we often are distracted by other activities and incentives when slow encroachments on liberty take place.

This is a serious problem, captured in the political imaginations of many diverse authors, from Thomas Jefferson to Ayn Rand. To which there is no answer but a proper kind of sacrifice of those who would not seek power for themselves.

But, returning to my original point, how do you explain apologists for tyrants, such as Oliver Stone? His latest film, lauding Latin American dictatorship, makes one wonder about the problem of hardened paradigms. Amidst the most basic evidence about Chavez's mendacity and stupidity it is amazing how tightly some can cling to the paradigm of the "strong man."

A projection of their own insecurity, perhaps, even as they occupy positions of some modest influence over society.

Perhaps Mr. Stone, with more respect for the genius of his own film-making community, should go back and watch Chaplin's classic "Great Dictator" and other such films to clear his head a little. (Wikipedia entry here.)

More eloquent treatises have been written about this secondary problem of tyranny than mine. My only point is to note that dictators do not thrive without their foolish supporters. And as we see from Stone's latest piece of propaganda, the tyrannical temperament remains deeply and powerfully rooted in many places, even in so-called "free societies."

A Simple Philosophy to Help Mankind

I am a recovering political junkie. I don't like the controversy of politics, or how crazy it makes people. I prefer not to wade into political controversy when there is very little chance of winning. I have learned a lot of hard lessons about this activity over the years and I try to stay on the wagon.

But now, when wild charges are being lobbed around about why people don't want so much government spending and debt and intervention into various sectors of the economy, we see some people, our leaders in government, engaged in the most outrageous ad hominem attacks and demonization against anyone who disagrees with them and their wild, self-serving activities.

I don't like being called a member of some conspiracy or a hateful person simply because I don't have faith in government's (read: mediocre, headline-chasing politicians) ability to save us from ourselves.

Embedded below is a very simple, powerful statement of facts about our current government programs. And a clear articulation of why markets work to improve the general well being of humanity and government does not.

There is no hate in this. There is no "code" or conspiracy. There is nothing here that well-intentioned progressives can take umbrage at. (Although, they will never give me the same credit of good intentions if I say that I truly believe the market, not government, is the best way to make life better for my fellow man.)

For the self-righteous progressive, people who articulate the cause of freedom can never be taken at face value. Why? Because to do so would require the hard work and risk to one's own righteous self-image of having to address real arguments and real facts like those articulated by Judge Napolitano below.

Chavez a Lifer: Venezuela's a Goner

We are living in strange, dangerous times. With yesterday's news that Hugo Chavez can have his job for life, it's time to short Venezuela. Latin America should prepare for refugees.

Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to emasculate itself with massive deficit spending, and the promise of more interventionist regulation and spending to come.

The world, it seems, is on a path to fiscal instability and the increasing politicization of economies. Willingly, through the popular vote.

Madness.

Newsweek Not the Best Source of Economic Advice

Bias and economic illiteracy continue to rule in the mainstream news media, as Daniel Gross at Newsweek has put forth a stupid argument against tax cuts.

Gross's entire argument is predicated on the notion that tax cuts won't stimulate immediate consumption - contrary to conservative claims. A college professor may feel especially "flush" and buy books, Gross argues, but an average worker, in today's unique economic climate of fear, will not.

Putting aside the specious claim that today's climate is uniquely fearful, compared to say the days of the Carter Administration, Gross's argument is a straw man. It has nothing to do with the arguments that conservatives have been making on behalf of permanent, marginal tax rate cuts to create incentives to entrepreneurship and investment, which in turn creates new, good paying jobs.

It's never been about spurring consumption among the average worker. Newsweek is not the best source to get your economic policy guidance, I would suggest.

Real Leaders Needed to Combat Forthcoming Inflation, or Stagflation

Make no mistake, with the Fed printing money like mad, inflation will return. George Melloan explains why it could also be a return to "stagflation."

The question that is particularly acute, especially after the disgraceful performance of Congress on the disgusting, irresponsible stimulus pork barrel bill, is are there any real "statesmen" in Congress, or in the government at all for that matter.

Leaders, who who will call the government and the country to account for its wishful fantasies that cheap money and spending by government on just about any stupid thing (Keynesian stimulus - a great excuse for pork) will solve all of our problems. America needs true courageous leaders in government, more than ever.

Shlaes Reminds Us of the Cost of Government Arrogance

Excellent piece today by Amity Shlaes, disabusing us of our current New Deal nostalgia. Did you know, for example, that FDR set the price of gold daily at his breakfast table, based upon his own "lucky numbers?" (Shlaes' latest book, "The Forgotten Man" is up there on my reading list for '09.)

Make no mistake: Barack Obama, often compared to FDR on the basis of his nascent popularity and his big spending plans, has absolutely no idea how to fix the American economy. He and his administration minions will "experiment" and tinker like Roosevelt, because, like Roosevelt, they are supremely confident in their own competence.

Shlaes reminds us of the remarkable arrogance and folly of such an approach.

The answer to economic growth is simple. Get out of the way. Animal spirits in the marketplace create growth, not government. Government redistributes resources via coercion, which produces nothing at its best and destroys productive resources at its worst.

Sadly, it seems likely that we will have to suffer for at least 24 months, until the midterm Congressional elections, and perhaps more, if the Republican Party cannot rid itself of its pathetic, grasping leadership and return to its roots in classical free market economics and limited constitutional government.

Will Canada Show America the Way?

Great, educational piece by Theo Caldwell up there in the Great White North about Canada debating tax cuts and economic growth. The Canadians are pondering real solutions to economic woes, while America ponders the cult of Obama and his big-spending brain trust. Goh, Canada!

Krugman Nobel Prize Covered with Balance and Imbalance

The New York Times' coverage of the Nobel Prize in economics to Paul Krugman is surprisingly balanced. As opposed to, say, the ridiculous piece on Bloomberg which is more about President Bush than Krugman. Or, the seemingly incoherent point of view on Marketwatch.