George Handlery about the week that was.

1. While writing this, the news spread that US federal spending outside the security and entitlement area is to be frozen for three years. Regardless of the laudable intention, some skepticism is warranted. The weaker the President gets – the vote in Massachusetts suggests that Obama is losing ground – the more he needs to spend. Spending buys support. The more is spent, the greater the influence of the administration will be. Stopping spending for the duration of a speech is possible. Beyond that time limit, however, we discover a major problem. It is that spending is not caused by discovering new holes into which money can be stuffed. The core reason for spending is that there is a philosophy according to which the allocation of dough heals problems – or at least it will shut the mouth of complainers. Therefore, the need of priority is not a case-by-case reduction of some marginal expenses. What the situation demands is the abandonment of the philosophy behind the process. The one is meant that regards the throwing of money at problems as statecraft.

2. Regarding the threatened minor spending cuts: Discussing cosmetic cuts might not necessarily limit the Administration’s might. The size of threatening cuts to be negotiated, and the possibility of exemptions for the deserving, can be swung like a baseball bat. The hope of not being hit where it hurts is likely to be the motor of obedience.

3. Massachusetts elected a Republican. That amounts to giving the Papacy to an Imam. No wonder that the occurrence continues to inspire commentaries that tend to repeat what we know. Our commentators agree that, as the result of the vote, Obama will have a difficult time because of the loss of his hither “super majority”. Surprisingly, even if this is generally shared wisdom, the analysis holds water. Embedded in the agreed upon estimate is an implication. It is a virtual admission that Obama needs a Supreme Soviet-style and programmed majority to govern. This in the system of American federalism that, by the design of its creators, likes to split the control of the legislature and the presidency between parties. The “super majority” is a multiple of the usual majority the system can produce. It is required now because behind the scene created by the Chief Fog Maker’s clever phrases, there is a hidden reality. The administration is uninterested in the opposition’s advice, in consulting skeptics and is not inclined to cooperate with the “other side”. This condition tells a lot about the pursued programs. Also about the weakness of their executors who do not trust their ability to create a consensus.

4. Any society has the need and the right to be governed by the very best of its constituent members. Regarding this principle, it is hard to anticipate serious disagreement. If then we accept the principle as a standard to be applied then an examination of the process that is designed to implement that notion is warranted. In doing so, the reader, not unlike this writer, is likely to arrive at a disturbing insight. It is that the selection and election process is structured in such a manner that those that stand out by their record, intellect and ethics, are unlikely to be selected for a candidacy. And once nominated, the system by which we elect, especially the campaign‘s rules that determine the parameters of the election, are likely to work against the desirable candidate. These tend to make those persons electable that are not the best-qualified individuals to govern.

5. Eons ago, a sizeable fraction of the American Left and the Progressives of those times – the writer belonged to them – demanded the unhindered rise of talent. Equality had been part of the program only in the sense of giving all an equal opportunity to elevate themselves to the level of their proven competence. The rise of the talented was to be unhindered by race, ethnic background, the social class of the parents, or whatever. However, in time, the motive for this element ceased to be what the original noble goal of their project has been. The passage of time also erased the pursuit of the justice it was to deliver. Much rather the project’s purpose became the attainment of power. The “equality” component, which the adjusted project‘s realization implies, gives clout to those that are put in charge of its implementation. The more so since, once the plan is to be carried out, hurdles emerge. Demolishing these is a duty inherent in the laudable purpose of the original project. In proceeding accordingly, a right to coercion, depicted as a duty of those administering the mission, is discovered.

6. The conceited attempt to liberate mankind from the force of its traditions demands that the influence of the past be shattered. This in turn implies that that coercive violence is elevated to a touted tool. Implicitly it is assumed in this context that, duress applied by the anointed agents of the “good”, is not oppression. Much rather it is the education of man to become receptive to new freedoms brought to him from a level to which he cannot even extend his glance. Violence appeals to an instinct. It happens to be a drive of which we intuitively know that it is wrong. The function of ideologies is to deal with such moral restraints.  Accordingly, they generally suggest that in the pursuit of noble and ennobling aims, the otherwise forbidden shedding of blood is a sign of the virtue of the one that uses the muscle. These are the reasons why, regardless of the excuses that assert the contrary, violence in the service of ratio and thereby the of the „good” is necessarily rare.

7. Observed. Frequently, those who like to describe themselves as “revolutionaries” either covet power for themselves or they wish to ignore those rules that not they have invented. At the same time, the claimed service for the improvement of mankind allows them to insist that others respect their rules and even more, to show deference to the rank and power the ruling revolutionaries have attained.

8. A society’s level of future achievement is determined whether, and to which extent, it is able to cling to its ideals as it attempts to implement them.

9. The simplest and apparently most plausible answer that can carry away the enthused listeners must not necessarily be the most valid one.

10. Nothing is easier than to convince someone that he is exploited, abused, underestimated, and deprived of what would be allocated to him under a just order.

11. It is easy to be completely committed to the principle of equality of power and wealth when you feel that you are poor and weak. Once you attained the power to implement policies that express your will, your perspective might change. Its consequence will be that you begin to find convincing reasons to put conditions on your original premises and especially on the one regarding the equality of all.

12. Revolutions like to claim that they represent the beginning of a new era that breaks with the past. (An expression of this is a revolutionary calendar.) In doing so, they claim to bring justice to all those who had been held back by the previous regime which will be equated – with or without reason – with injustice made into a system. Some, but not all revolutions, have accomplished at least several but not all of their promises. The discrepancy between performance and the promises embodied in the program are inevitable. Ideals are not fully realizable. Whether the difference alluded to will condemn the failing new rulers depends on how practical the proposed changes are and how much of the old needs to be torn down to start to build the new. The practical men that led it explain the success of the American Revolution. Furthermore, the needed changes were limited in their extent: the cast-off British system was the best one of its time. From the writer’s “different” perspective an added factor, one that facilitated future achievements, deserves mentioning. The architects of change wanted stability and an orderly, therefore organic development. They also realized a fundamental truth, namely that where there is no security for all there cannot be liberty either.