The CLEaR Think Tank

Welcome CLEaR Thinkers!

2006-09-04T02:09:00.000-07:00

***NEW*** LIVELIEST CRIB PODCAST

A CLEaR Start:
Introductory Letter and Hello / Frequently Asked Questions

Thinking CLEaRly:
Civil Liberties / Equality / Rationality

CLEaR Writings:
Perverted Paradigm

EMail the CLEaR Alliance

Wanna Join Us? Yea! Click here.

Smart Tax Alliance

2006-05-09T09:55:00.000-07:00

Smart Tax Alliance

I've been hearing a bit of talk about the concept of "outrage fatigue" lately. I can understand this. If we are not suppose to be saving wolves being shot in Alaska, we "should" be writing congress about the latest Bush scandal in Washington. When you are overloaded with 20 to 30 e-mails of this type weekly -- or even daily -- of course "outrage fatigue" will set in.

Solution: relax, count your blessings -- and. then, work on the ROOT CAUSES of most of these problems. In my mind the root causes center on not including the "True" social and environmental costs into the the products we buy.

To do this we must implement a program of "Earthrights Democracy".

Please spread the word.

The R Is for Rationality: Intelligent Backfire

2006-03-07T20:55:00.000-08:00

Couldn't Have Designed This More Intelligently Myself

Let's start with some good news for a change! Remember the recent and laudable decision that struck down Dover, Pennsylvania's introduction of (less-than-)Intelligent Design into the town's science curriculum? (I know it's long, but you really should read it. Any ruling that says that school board decisions to teach ID are characterized by "breathtaking inanity" ought to be published and stacked prominently on the shelves of Barnes & Noble.) Well, it just may have sounded a death knell for the Scopes Monkey sequels and spin-offs that have been cropping up at schools near you.

The Ohio Board of Education voted this month NOT to allow Intelligent Design to be taught in its state either. The vote was a resounding 11 to 4! As if that weren't good enough, one of the board members, whose improbably appropriate name is Martha Wise, wrote a very nice explanation of why she, although a Republican and a creationist herself, voted against the policy. Said Wise,

It is deeply unfair to the children of this state to mislead them about the nature of science. The future of Ohio's prosperity depends on a well-educated workforce that understands science. The future of religious freedom in this country depends on the electorate understanding that modern science is not a threat to faith. Atheists who say science disproves God are misrepresenting science just as badly as the most disingenuous "creation-science" peddlers.

My, oh my, oh my! Could it really be? A Republican creationist in charge of education thinking CLEaRly? Now, personally, I don't know, or even know of, any scientists or atheists myself who actually argue that "science disproves god," but Ms. Wise's words are perfectly correct, and she is to be commended.

But that's not all! All over the place, the (un)Intelligent Design movement seems to be backfiring as completely as it could. ID's faux surrender to the scientific method is awakening people of all stripes to the nature of science, and how it differs from religion. They're thinking CLEaRly! ( See FAQ #7) Lest you be skeptical (irony intended), check this out! Four hundred fifty churches around the country are celebrating the birthday of Charles Darwin! You heard me right - church-goers are proudly distinguishing themselves from the anti-evolution crowd, noting the benefits of scientific knowledge, and imploring their fellow faithful to recognize the compatibility of evolution and religion.

But even that's not all! Check out this new organization called Christians and Climate. Yep, an evangelical site dedicated to responding to the crisis of global warming, flying directly in the face of that guy in the White House.

Hallelujah!

The R Is for Rationality: Make Cancer, Not Love

2006-03-07T20:39:00.000-08:00

Cancer Is a Family Value

Well, it can't all be good news, ok? There are still prominently irrational groups out there opposed to scientific advances.

Like the irrepressible Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council, who had vowed to fight - I kid you not - a new vaccine that will prevent cervical cancer. Now, I say had vowed to fight because it looks like they've altered their stance a bit, possibly in response to a variety of "You've got to be friggen kidding" e-mails. Brigdet Maher, of the Family Research Council had at one point said ,

Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex.

She then vowed that her organization would fight such a nefarious medical development. Uh-huh. We're talking about the human papillomavirus, a sexually transmitted virus that can get through condoms, is carried by both men and women, but only kills women - thousands upon thousands a year, a statistic which, scientists believe, can be reduced by up to 70% by this vaccine. Anyone want to move to New Zealand?

Don't pack your bags just yet - both Maher's and James Dobson's activist lunatic asylums are now articulating their stances slightly differently. Now they say that they're all for the vaccine, and that, of course, any medical advance that helps wipe out cervical cancer is a good thing..... BUT, mandatory vaccination of young children is a bad thing , as it takes away a parent's liberty not to vaccinate her child, and to school that child in abstinence instead. I guess that's what Jesus would do?

Heh, I gotta admit - notwithstanding that Dobson probably believes in his liberty to sell his daughter into slavery or stone her to death in accordance with some chapter and verse - the question of whether there is, in fact, a civil liberties issue regarding the mandatory vaccination of children for a virus spread through sexual activity would make for an interesting CLEaR debate topic.

From the Ridiculous Files: Gay-vian

2006-03-07T20:00:00.000-08:00

The Imminent Threat of Gay Penguins

I once found myself in my high school chemistry classroom having a conversation with the teacher about the nonsense science teachers encounter from paranoid parents. I asked her if any particular request or demand from a parent stuck out in her mind as the most loony. Indeed, one did: A parent began speaking about the frog his daughter had to dissect the other day, leading the teacher to believe, incorrectly, that she was about to be lectured on animal rights. Instead, she soon discovered that the parent's actual concern was that the frog was. . . [brace yourselves] . . . naked. Yes, that's right, this man wanted the dead and soon-to-be autopsied amphibians to don little pairs of pants so that his daughter would be spared the disturbing and damaging sight of their genitalia.

I have often recounted that story to people as though I had first-hand knowledge of the event, because, well, it's funnier that way. If incredulous listeners said to me, "Oh, come on! That's not true!" I would admit that my knowledge amounted to hearsay, but that my high school chemistry teacher told it to me, and I believe it.

To all those who still doubt that otherwise sensible Americans could be so ridiculous, I admire your skepticism, but I now must give you this. Apparently, a recent illustrated book, entitled And Tango Makes Three , documents the true (and not uncommon) story of two male penguins at a zoo that adopted an orphaned egg. They cared for it, sharing responsibilities, and are now together raising the penguin baby. Horrifying, I know.

And yes, concerned parents in Missouri - the state set to make Christianity its officially established religion (more on that below) - who found the book in the children's section of a library, went and complained. A story about deviant gay penguins might give children the impression that this sort of behavior was normal, and to be encouraged.

The library, to its credit, I suppose, would not remove the book from its shelves. In a less principled and more prudential move, however, did remove it from the children's section, and put it in non-fiction.

Um, is it heart-warming or heart-wrenching to learn that a species of bird is more open-minded than most human beings? Say, ya think we could spread this story far and wide and compel the authoritarians to leave and set up missionaries in the antarctic?

The W Is for War!

2006-03-07T19:47:00.000-08:00

The W Is for War!

George W(ar) Bush is going to take us into another war. We are going to attack Iran. It is going to happen. The people will be against it, and it won't matter to him. Our military resources will be completley diminished, and it won't matter to him. Hundreds of thousands (more) people will die in this next front, and it won't matter to him.

Now, I've been saying this for a long, long time. Why? Because I've read the website of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), and their insane document, Rebuilding America's Defenses. I wrote about this a while back - I hope you remember. They've had these plans since the mid-1990s. It has nothing to do with terrorism; it has nothing to do with 9/11.

Remember when Saddam had weapons of mass destruction? He was defying the world, and we were thinking about attacking him, but we were keeping all options on the table? Well, here's Darth Cheney just today: Iran.....

continues to defy the world with its nuclear ambitions . . . . The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose meaningful consequences . . . . the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime.

It's the same thing all over again. The exact same friggen words! Now, yes, to be fair, Iran DOES want nuclear weapons, and IS working on a program to get them, in defiance of the world. I'm sure this despicable administration will be stressing the "but this time we're right" angle soon enough.

Plain fact, though - Iran doesn't have them yet. We don't have to do this. The whole world does want diplomacy on this. Besides, we can't win. Our military is depleted.

But Bush and Cheney don't care. The authoritarians don't give a scintilla of a damn. We know that by now, don't we?

Oh, how there are so many other things I'd rather be sharing right now. And frankly, I don't wanna type about this anymore. How 'bout I let Rep. John Murtha (remember him?) do some talking for me: Crooks and Liars has him here in Windows Media Player or here in Quicktime talking about the situation in Iraq. And then watch him here in WMP or here in QT on the upcoming attacks on Iran.

Any suggestions on what we should all be doing?

The Case of Cory Maye

2005-12-09T15:23:00.000-08:00

Hello!

My name is Greg Mills and I was kindly ushered into the hallowed estates of CLeAr (or is it ClEAr?) many months ago, and I have yet to post. Are you as giddy as me? My nom du blog is Lil' Bobo. A really dumb name, I know. Anyway, my post:

Over at The Agitator, we find the case of a Mississippi man. Cory Maye, on death row for killing a cop...a cop who happened to be leading a drug raid into the wrong house. The raid team bursted into Mr. Maye's condo unannounced, in full paramilitary gear with arms drawn. Maye, who had no prior record, was home alone with his one year old daughter.

The name and address on the warrent was that of Mr. Maye's neighbor.

Mr. Maye, faced with a squad of unidentified paramilitaries raiding his house, shot one in the abdomen and kills him. Mr. Maye is now sitting on Mississippi's death row for defending his home.

If there was ever a cause libertarians and progressives should come together on, this case is it.

Hiya! - from CLEaR Alliance Founder, Karen

2005-10-24T17:32:00.000-07:00

I'm thrilled that you've stopped by to take a look at the CLEaR Alliance, our new, but growing (faster than anticipated) political organization. Together with my CLEaR Alliance Team, Mike, Jordan and Steve, and our wonderful growing list of members, we're offering this blog as a temporary forum for all CLEaR Thinkers before we get our website up and running.

The CLEaR Thinker's mission is three-fold:

Shatter the perverted paradigm that has pitted Progressives and Libertarians against each other in politics, allowing moral Authoritarians to threaten the very Civil Liberties and Equality that makes America great;

Reignite the Enlightenment, and reverse the retreat from reason upon which America seems to be embarking; and

Rescue, Restore and Complete the American Revolution!

Our penultimate goal is to restore our most noble and cherished American principle:

All men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among them Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

We paraphrase that sacred principle into admittedly less eloquent, but more modern and legal terms:

Each and every individual is equally, fully, and substantively entitled
to the Pursuit of Happiness.

Progressives (even the most ardent Social Democrats) and Libertarians (even the most orthodox advocates of Laissez Faire) still hold that truth to be self evident! The time has come for an alliance around that principle in order to battle together those powerful Authoritarian forces who would exterminate Civil Liberties, Equality and Rationality.

Join us! The CLEaR Alliance is always available at liveliest.crib@gmail.com. Feel free to request blogging privileges, or other materials. We particularly recommend our essay Perverted Paradigm, our materials on the Bill of Rights, Part 3, and on our newly proposed electoral system.

Have a look around, check out our FAQs, and our series on Thinking CLEaRly, and thanks so much for for stopping by!
Karen
Think CLEaRly! - Civil Liberties, Equality and Rationality

FAQs (or, at least, anticipated FAQS)

2005-10-23T16:23:00.000-07:00

1. Who Exactly Is Being Allied in the CLEaR Alliance?

2. And what exactly is bringing these people together?

3. What's the point? What do you actually plan to do?

4. What does membership require and entail?

5. Do I have to be/not be a member of any particular political party to join the CLEaR Alliance?

6. What's with the Acronym C.L.E.a.R.?

7. Rationality, at least as the CLEaR Alliance uses the term, apparently invokes skepticism and science; are devout or fundamentalist believers in a religion thus disqualified from membership?

8. Do I have to agree with every particular stance on every particular political issue of the CLEaR Alliance to join?

9. But I really do agree with CLEaR issues per se because it seems to mix Progressivism and Libertarianism - are there members who are working on synthesizing the two philosophies into one coherent idea itself, rather than just an alliance of otherwise competing ones?

10. What do you mean by "Reignite the Enlightenment?"

11. What do you mean by "Rescue, Restore and Complete the American Revolution?"

12. What's with "Bill of Rights, Part 3?" I mean, when was Part 2? What was Part 2?*

13. What the heck is with liveliest.crib?

Perverted Paradigm

2005-10-22T18:07:00.001-07:00

Introduction

The Three American Political Categories: Progressive, Libertarian, Authoritarian

A (not-so) Brief Romp Through American Historical Political Alignment
---Alignment and Realignment in the Second Stage of the American Revolution
-----Stage II, Phase 1
-----Stage II, Phase 2
-----Stage II, Phase 3
-----Stage II, Phase 4

So What Do We Do: The American Revolution, Stage III

Conclusion

Perverted Paradigm, p.1

2005-10-22T18:07:00.000-07:00

Introduction

Our language of political discourse has become so vague, ambiguous and self-contradictory that it has been rendered meaningless. In very frightening sense, we are teetering on the brink of Orwellian Newspeak. As described in the novel 1984, Newspeak deprived anyone who wished to advocate social or political change of the vocabulary to do so. The aim of Newspeak was not to persuade people into believing that the tyrannical government in charge was good for them. On the contrary, in the short term the goal was to render language so devoid of meaning that those who wished to advocate political change had no way to convey what they were thinking. And ultimately, the long-term goal was to render thought itself of political change impossible.

Now, thankfully, we're not there yet. And frankly, I could never claim with sincerity that we were in danger of that extreme. Dystopian literature is never realistic; it just provides warnings about political power, how it can be abused, and metaphors for orienting ourselves towards actual dangers we might perceive.

Actually, hope is alive, and as someone who has always voted for Democrats in my short life, I actually feel very hopeful even though my party is currently adrift on a shabby political lifeboat, flailing about with no real ideology or strategy. But to give you an idea of why I invoked the idea that we're flirting with Newspeak, consider, for instance, the way people react to the word Liberal. It doesn't mean anything, but it's fraught with such negative connotations that the very utterance of the syllables stirs even people who identify as liberals into frenzies of fear. It sort of means "big government;" it sort of means "socialist;" it sort of means "communist;" it sort of means "America-hater;" it sort of means "compassionate but naive;" it sort of means "pro-choice;" it sort of means "anti-life;" it sort of means "gay rights;" it sort of means "freedom;"....and on and on and on. Ultimately, while none of that is precisely true, and while some of those definitions are themselves devoid of any real meaning, "Liberal" has simply become a negative buzz word that conjures negative emotions, and nothing more. Conservative doesn't mean anything either, though it's beginning to become a kind of positive buzz word. It kind of means "pro-America;" it kind of means "core American values;" it kind of means "getting back to the original idea of the Founding Fathers;" it kind of means "family;" it kind of means "decency;" it kind of means "freedom;" etc.

And did you notice the last word on each list? Both words mean "freedom." Both Liberals and Conservatives consider themselves the guardians and champions of freedom. What's going on?

Ultimately, if you try to have a respectful, intellectual discussion, with people who actually do follow politics, and who are concerned about changing their country for the better, whether you tend to approach the world as a Liberal or as a Conservative, you may quickly find that Liberal and Conservative don't really mean anything. That is to say, they don't really enable you to convey what you mean. I can't tell you how many times I've tried to have conversations with, oh let's just call them 'right-wing-identified people I whose opinions I truly and sincerely respect,' in which we've simply had to abandon the labels of Conservative and Liberal in order to articulate our own thoughts with precision and communicate them to each other with assurance that we'd understand one other.

When we do this, we find that something very interesting happens: There are some fundamental issues and principles on which we actually agree. We don't necessarily agree on the best way to approach them, and to the extent that we share some fundamental goals, we don't necessarily agree on the methods of achieving them. Nevertheless, there is common ground.

Then, we shake hands, and separate back into our respective political parties, and the potential for working together through the newfound common ground is shot straight to hell.

For better or worse, the United States has usually operated in a two-party system. Currently, and ever since the demise of the Whig Party, we've had the Democrats vs. the Republicans. Each party has members who pin themselves at various different points along the meaningless Liberal-Conservative spectrum, and we're now engaged in a yelling match, mistakenly seeing ourselves as polarized, irreconcilably stuck at opposite ends of the most ridiculous and deceptive of lines. The modern media, complete with rabid talk radio and 24-hour news stations reporting from an ideological, rather than objective, stance, only aggravates our predicament.

Meaningful communication has become impossible.

To the extent that the Republicans currently have the upper-hand in government, and there's no denying that they do, the Democrats' future is bleak - but not because people wouldn't agree with many of them if they actually understood what they were trying to say. On the contrary, current political language renders Democrats unable to convey what they mean. In fact, current political language renders many Democrats unable to know what they mean. Democrats, given the way that the political language is taking shape, are almost at the point where they can't think! And that, my friends, is Newspeak.

Again, of course, it's really only quasi-Newspeak, if we're true to what was taking place in 1984, and no, I'm not trying to sound alarmist bells. (If I were, I would ironically succumb to this quasi-Newspeak myself, since people would think I was a paranoid lunatic, and I wouldn't really get my point across.) But to a frightening extent, the goal of Newspeak is starting to manifest itself, insofar as our very political paradigm - the Democrats vs. the Republicans each trying to establish its foothold along the Liberal-Conservative spectrum - is perverted. It doesn't make any sense, it conveys nothing of import, and the words we use don't mean anything. Political discussion from the Democrats to their opposition, and to an extent, political thought within the Democratic Party, seems like it's becoming impossible.

This Perverted Paradigm is growing and becoming stronger every day. The likes of George W. Bush and Karl Rove are in seventh heaven, as they are able to manipulate it masterfully to get whatever they want, not merely to the Democrats' dismay, but to their bewilderment.

So, geez, Karen, given that we are operating in this Perverted Paradigm, why did you say you were hopeful? Well, because we're not a Fascist country, and we do still have free speech, and because there's something that needs to be pointed out, that, if understood and accepted, I really believe we can use to extricate our country from the dangers we are facing. There is a way out: for all freedom-oriented thinkers, despite our particular policy differences, to form an alliance - one that is CLEaR.

CLEaR is just my little acronym for Civil Liberties, Equality and Rationality. (And yeah, I'm using a groan-worthy pun for saying that we should think and speak clearly. My apologies.) Democrats may be losing confidence in this, and it may sound strange, but I really do believe that most Americans are still dedicated to Liberty - basic individual freedom with which no government may interfere; Equality - ensuring that liberty applies to each and every individual equally, regardless of race, sex, religion, etc., and in a substantive and real sense; and Rationality, that through reason, logic, patience and understanding human beings have amazing potential to observe, describe and manipulate their world, in science, politics, law, etc. In large part, the Constitution devised by our Founding Fathers has enabled just that. And in large part, it has not. But, to whatever extent our Constitution is in danger at the moment, it's also to an extent because we're operating in this crazy Perverted Paradigm, so we can't communicate the danger, and we don't know how to think about it. We're confused and we're lost, especially the Democrats.

The Alliance I'm speaking of will, because of the Perverted Paradigm, at first sound oxymoronic or paradoxical. But there are a lot of non-political people out there, who really aren't, or don't enjoy being, involved in politics or law on an everyday basis, who I hope will be attracted to this political and legal Alliance - scientists, skeptics, teachers, linguists, entrepreneurs, journalists, artists, and hey, even people of one religious persuasion or another who see the value in a 'live-and-let-live' philosophy of tolerance and respect. On a more strictly political level - and this is where you're going to think I've lost my mind - we can bring together the likes of Barry Goldwater-style arch-conservatives and the likes of Howard Dean-style arch-liberals.

Heh, before you write me off as just another political thinker with a screw loose, remember that I believe the paradigm in which we operate is perverted. We are not describing the world or using labels in ways that are useful anymore.

In a very general sense, one of our major problems is that America has only two main powerful parties, but three main political philosophies. Indulge me for a second in my personal classification system and you'll see what I mean. I'm going to use three very broad terms, borrowing from the typical political lexicon. While these classifications of mine are not scientifically precise to the point where anyone could adhere to any one philosophy strictly, I think I can use them to explain myself.

The terms are: Authoritarian, Libertarian and Progressive.

I personally believe that those terms encapsulate the basic American layperson's choices - right now, and since the end of the 19th Century. But since we convey the terms Conservative and Liberal, and then respectively, Republican and Democrat, people who fall more or less into one of those three philosophies must then try to decide which of the two options better suits them. (At least if they want to be a real political player. There are of course, plenty of powerless third parties from which to choose.)

And therein lies an essential part of the Perverted Paradigm. We can't reconcile these three philosophies within the two choices, any more than we can shove a square peg into a circular hole, especially when all three philosophies and both political parties are trying to define on their own terms, not just "Liberty," "Equality," and "Rationality," but also "Freedom," "Values," "Morals," "America," "Democracy," "Constitution," and on and on and on. What I'm going to try to do is show you how each of the two parties, and each of the three philosophies are approaching those concepts, why I think communication is so seriously breaking down, and why the Democrats are, at the moment, incapacitated.

At the same time, I'll try to illuminate a way out.

For the moment, what I want to convey, most importantly, is that of the three philosophies, CLEaR thought can successfully ally the Libertarians and the Progressives, leaving the Authoritarians lost in the wilderness. I think it's possible. I think it's rightful. And, most of all, I think it's imperative if we are going to rescue the American dream, and restore the American Revolution and the Constitution.

To be sure, Libertarians and Progressives will have some major philosophical differences. Some will be incompatible - but only in methods of achieving a common goal, not in the goals themselves. Both the Progressives' goal and the Libertarians' goal is fundamentally one and the same, and profoundly rooted in the American dream. That common goal is diametrically opposed to the main goal of the Authoritarians, but because we're operating in the Perverted Paradigm, we can't see it. Because we can't see it, the Libertarians and the Authoritarians are currently allied together, leaving the Progressives lost and confused.

Now that I've completely thrown you for a loop....let me introduce you to what I mean:
Continue to next section

Perverted Paradigm, p.2

2005-10-22T18:05:00.001-07:00

The Three American Political Categories

Thomas Jefferson wrote, in the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among them, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. This is the essence of the American Revolution. To this, the signatories pledged - literally - their lives, fortunes and sacred honors.

But at America's founding, a variety of people vehemently disagreed. They hated freedom and equality - they owned and enslaved an entire race for crying out loud. Some of them wanted to enforce their religious preferences on everyone else. They've been the scourge of our country since its inception, and we've been fighting them from within since 1776. They are the Authoritarians, and right now, they're in charge.

Viewed in its best light, a one-paragraph encapsulation of American Authoritarianism might read like this: Government should control and limit people's individual behavior. We need to keep people moral. We need to criminalize even private behavior, and instill proper religious values, or all of society will break down and fall apart. It is necessary and proper that government be morally authoritarian, unless, in certain very limited circumstances, the Constitution forbids it, which it rarely does. No, there is no right to privacy. No, there is no right to sodomy, and there are none of these other insidious false rights that liberal activists have read into the Constitution because they felt like it. The Constitution lists out very clearly what we can and can not do as either a state government or a federal government, and to read into it rights that aren't really there only threatens the very moral fabric that holds a free and civil society together. An unregulated economy (at least one that is not producing filthy and immoral products) can probably advance on its own, and people who succeed monetarily probably do so deservedly. But we must regulate individual behavior, lest our culture degenerate into complete and total chaos.

The most influential framers of the Constitution were, by and large, Classical Liberals. The Classical Liberal ideology drew upon philosophers like John Locke, and later, economists like Adam Smith. Classical Liberalism lives on today in the form of Libertarianism. A capitalist, free market economy, staunchly protected property rights and individual natural rights mark the central tenets of Libertarian ideology today, and American Libertarianism can be summed up as follows: The government must remain as small as possible, in all ways and all the time. As Jefferson put it, the government that governs best, governs least. We are committed to the basic notion that almost everything the government could imagine doing, will be bad - not necessarily in motivation, but in practice. Individuality is a wonderful thing, and regulation of individual behavior is proper only to the extent that it prevents one person from infringing upon the equal and natural rights of another person. Markets are wonderful things and remarkably self-regulating, requiring government action only to protect the rights of property, and enforce private, non-fraudulent contracts. Grow the government in any way beyond those essentials, even in a way that is well-intended, and you will infringe upon the equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The Progressives didn't come along, as a real political force at least, until the end of the 19th Century, and found their hero in Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The essence of progressivism is that government is not all bad. In fact, there are many ways in which the government can be used for good - to help people. Roosevelt himself referred to the New Deal as the "Second Bill of Rights." As much as they loved the American Revolution for its ideals and the "American dream," the Progressives looked around at the world in which they were actually living, and noticed that most people - especially poor people, wage earners, and minorities - were hardly living the American Dream. In a very real sense, according to the Progressives, lack of government action (especially in the economy) meant that poor people and minorities simply didn't have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Progressives believed, and still believe, that the government should grow bigger, not to kill the American dream, but to help it come to full fruition. To that end, Progressives stressed equality more than liberty, and American Progressivism can be encapsulated as follows:

It'd be great to have a world where the government could simply stay out of everything to the greatest extent possible, but face it, if we do that, people are not really Free and Equal. They're free, in sort of a "survival of the fittest," "sporting match without a referee," "welcome to the jungle" sense of freedom, but how exactly is that a good thing without some sort of enforced measure of Equality? If the government stays out of EVERYTHING, we have merely beheaded the de jure tyranny of government oppression only to have the head of de facto tyrannies of corporations, pollution, bigotry and poverty grow in its place. Sure, markets are good, but not entirely self-regulating in a completely beneficial way. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are threatened by unrestrained powerful private people, and the government must act affirmatively, for Freedom, Equality, Safety and Happiness to have real substance. Otherwise, the vast, vast majority of people end up impoverished, discriminated against, physically sick and powerless. If they can't turn to the government for collective help, they can't turn anywhere. To wit, government must provide social programs that provide an economic safety net and to produce social equality as much as humanly possible.

So, to sum up....

Authoritarian = Government growth is good in order to secure the moral fabric of society at large, but we should probably resist other kinds of growth. It's in the Constitution.

Progressive = Government growth is good in order to promote equality among people, but ought to refrain from other kinds of growth. It's in the Constitution.

Libertarian = Government growth is bad, and ought to restrict itself to the basic essentials - protection against violence, protection of property rights. It's in the Constitution.

Naturally, nobody fits into any category perfectly. Some individuals synthesize two of the three to form another coherent ideology, and we all have at least a smidge of all three in us somehow. Moreover, even today, there are Authoritarians in both major political parties. They just disagree about what constitutes morality. And, in fact, there are Libertarians and Progressives in both parties as well,.

Nevertheless, generalizations can be made that ring true for people and for both parties. Now, with the generalizations in mind, try to imagine wedging those three competing philosophies into just two political parties. At best, there would only be constantly shifting alliances of 2 against 1. By and large, that's what we've seen throughout American history.
Continue to next section

Perverted Paradigm, p.3

2005-10-22T18:05:00.000-07:00

A (not so) Brief Romp Through the History of American Political Alignment

In large part, our Constitution, with its checks and balances across differing branches and levels of government, appears to have ingeniously prevented America from experiencing the extremist version of any of the three philosophies. Other parts of the world haven't been so lucky. Authoritarianism in the world has been practiced as Fascism, Petty Dictatorships and Theocracy. Progressivism has been practiced as Soviet-style Communism, which, as experienced, wasn't much different from Fascism. And Laissez Faire Libertarian Capitalism has (at least in my opinion) led to such overwhelming haves vs. have-nots in certain places at certain times (think Dickensian London) that one shudders merely upon reading about it.

Without belittling America's historical tragedies - slavery, the Civil War, the Great Depression, and the political corruption, assasinations and wars of the 20th Century - it appears safe to say that the United States, hasn't suffered nearly as much as the rest of the world. Nevertheless, the three political philosophies have been vying for influence in American politics since the late 19th Century, but perversely, through only two political parties, and our history is tragic in its own strange and ironic way.

The American Revolution fell squarely in the age of the Enlightenment, when fearless, activists - Classically Liberal intellectuals - dared to rebel against remote Monarchical authority to conceive a new kind of nation that respected freedom and natural rights. Of course, in order to pull off this feat, they had to make profound compromises with the Authoritarians in their realm, leaving the establishment of religions and whether to abide by the Bill of Rights to the respective State governments, as well as prolonging the enslavement of an entire race of people. The Classical Liberals among the "Founding Fathers" knew full well that their Revolution was not complete, and were equally aware that freedom would remain continually under attack.

In my not-so-humble opinion, the Civil War marked the beginning of the next "stage" in the American Revolution. At the war's close 3 Constitutional amendments were ratified - Amendments 13, 14 and 15 - designed to free the slaves (13), allow former slaves to vote (15), and restructure the system of federalism so that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution at large applied directly to state governments, and guaranteed equal protection of the laws to all U.S. citizens (14).

From that point on, we've seen the development of the Perverted Paradigm, as Progressives, Libertarians and Authoritarians all sought to dominate American politics. As far as I can tell, the political alignments arranged and rearranged themselves as follows: Continue to the next section.

Perverted Paradigm, p.4

2005-10-22T18:04:00.000-07:00

Political Alignment and Realignment in the "Second Stage" of the American Revolution

Stage II, Phase 1:
Authoritarian and Progressive Democrats vs. Libertarian Republicans amid World Wars

Immediately before, during, and immediately following, the Civil War: Democrats were outright Authoritarians, Republicans were quasi- or Proto-Libertarians, and Progressives didn't exist.

Libertarians, as Republicans, ruled officially for a long time, especially in the Federal Government, which they used for Reconstruction, but ultimately, they wanted to keep government really small. Different philosophies began to emerge within the Republican Party - some more orthodox Libertarian than the party's founders, others more Progressive. In the minds of the Progressives, keeping the federal government small was a huge detriment to the American dream, especially since even after the Civil War and passing the more literal "Second Bill of Rights" - Amendments 13, 14 and 15 - Authoritarian Democrats still held a stranglehold on the American Southern States. The Progressives wanted to grow the federal government to help poor people and minorities in the South. Progressives within the Republican Party did enact the nation's first Civil Rights Act in the 1860s, along with the 14th Amendment, but ultimately, the Supreme Court nullified much of the 14th Amendment's revolutionary potential.........

{omitted sections}--->this is purely to save space, please e-mail us for a complete version

.....In the late 19th Century, amid the Industrial Revolution, Progressivism began to emerge as a bona fide political force. In the early 20th Century, led by former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt, one group of "Proto-Progressives" embraced environmental conservation, and worked with newly forming Labor Unions. These "Proto-Progressives" did not fully embrace things like Welfare as we understand it today, and certainly were not "Progressive" in the fullest sense in which I'm using the term. But they did try to work with Libertarians in the Republican Party. Upon eventually finding that incompatible (and after a number of historical turns of events), they formed the Progressive Party, often referred to as The Bull Moose Party. When that crashed and burned, as almost all third parties have in our history except the Republicans, the Progressives, over time, somehow merged with the Democrats.

Authoritarians and Progressives were strange bedfellows, but had one crucial thing in common: They liked government growth. They just liked it for very different reasons........

{omitted sections}--->this is purely to save space, please e-mail us for a complete version

The Republicans began to lose the Federal Government around the time of WWI. President Woodrow Wilson, a brutal Authoritarian Democrat, took over and began growing the government in a way more Libertarian-minded Republicans despised. Moreover, Authoritarians in Wilson's cabinet, like that horror of a politician, William Jennings Bryan, began using fear tactics and religious authority throughout the country. Bryan remains famous (or infamous) for prosecuting the Scopes-Monkey trial (at which he was humiliated), and preached about God and Jesus and their place in the American way of life. (Yeah...it was the Democrats doing that! Only through the Perverted Paradigm could modern Democrats think of the Wilson administration as something they would vote for today.)

It was left to various types of Libertarians to defend the Constitution against such encroachments and government growth. And as the Progressives sought to affiliate themselves with both major parties, it can hardly be said that the Libertarians were successful.

It was during this post-Civil War Authoritarian/Progressive "Democratic era" that the United States established the Federal Reserve and Progressives had successfully launched the Women's Suffrage movement. The Constitution was amended several times - to offer women the right to vote; to allow the people of each state to elect their U.S. Senators in direct popular elections; and to prohibit poll taxes.

So far, so good, one might think, but it was also during this "Democratic era" that the southern states' Authoritarian Democrats terrorized minorities with the KKK, and the Constitution was actually amended for a disastrous Authoritarian project - the Prohibition of Alcohol. So awful was Prohibition, and the Mafia/police state that it nurtured, that it was repealed just 12 years after its ratification.

Once the "Great War" was over, Republicans regained some strength, with successive Presidents Harding, Coolidge and Hoover. But Libertarians (again, not necessarily strictly in the way I'm defining the term today) completely lost their grip on the federal government when the Great War was replaced with the Great Depression.

Suddenly, to all sorts of people, Progressivism became HIGHLY attractive. America was supposed to be about Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, but most people in America - whether suffering from bigotry or poverty - found that Life wasn't all that worth living at all. The pursuit of happiness was not the equal right of everyone, and without being born into some sort of privilege, the pursuit of happiness was nothing more than the pursuit of a modest reduction of misery.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was (perhaps not coincidentally for the story I'm telling) Theodore Roosevelt's somewhat distant blood-relative. The champion of all things Progressive Democrats hold sacred, FDR's success in creating the New Deal ultimately earned the vitriolic hatred of both the Authoritarians and the Libertarians.

The Libertarians hated it because it grew the federal government to unprecedented proportions - and not always through democratic means. The Supreme Court at first struck down many Progressive New Deal programs as Unconstitutional, until Roosevelt threatened to "pack" the court - that is, change its structure by increasing its membership from 9 to 12 justices, whereupon he would simply appoint judges more to his liking. Upon being threatened, and with a Democratic Congress that could back the threat up (although they didn't), the Supreme Court acquiesced to the Progressive President's demands, a change in opinions known as the "Switch in Time that Saved Nine."

Libertarians deride this historical turn of events, and even as someone who admires the New Deal, I can't say I'm unsympathetic. Libertarians believe that the Constitution and the rule of law were undermined by the New Deal. Moreover, they believe that the New Deal did nothing but create a welfare state that ultimately harms the very people its intended to help. These are claims that today's Progressive Democrats would be wise to listen to. The welfare-state claim is touted widely, but the Constitutional claim is not. Whether they ultimately agree with the claims or not, understanding them will help clarify the Democrats' current predicament, and why what seems to be common sense to modern Democrats doesn't seem that way to their opponents. In fact, the jurisprudential philosophy under which the power to erect New Deal programs became "presumptively Constitutional" is now widely touted by the Religious Right and other Authoritarians who seek to legitimate any tyrannical law.......

{omitted sections}--->this is purely to save space, please e-mail us for a complete version

.......Authoritarian Democrats probably hoped to secure a position of dominance, but it eventually became clear that FDR, and especially first lady Eleanor Roosevelt, were dismantling ideas about racism and sexism. Imagine their dismay when President Truman, straight-talking Progressive Democrat, desegregated the army.

By the time WWII was over, women had begun working in jobs men had long held exclusively. The culture was changing and the Authoritarians couldn't stop it. The governmental structure was changing, and the Libertarians couldn't stop it. Progressives, rightly or wrongly, began to see themselves as the defenders of the actual Constitution, and believed that they were succeeding in using the government for the good of all - to enable life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for everyone, regardless of economic status, race, sex, color or creed. This, they believed, was the essence of Progress itself.
Continue to next section

Perverted Paradigm, p.5

2005-10-22T18:03:00.000-07:00

Stage II, Phase 2:
Progressive Democrats vs. Libertarian Republicansamid Displaced Authoritarians and Increasing Paranoia

As WWII came to a close, the Progressive Democrats had secured a strong foothold in the Federal Government. Roosevelt had been elected president four times. Fascism and Nazism had been defeated, in Europe and in Japan, on his and President Truman's watch. America had created the nuclear bomb and used it. America was a "Superpower."

Meanwhile, Libertarian Republicans were decrying the sacrifice of the Constitution and Economic Liberty. Whatever the short-term "progress" Democrats believed to have brought about, Libertarian Republicans believed that the delegitimization of the idea that "Limited Government was the true guardian of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness," could only come back to haunt the country in the long term. Power of any kind, they might tell you, corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely. Moreover, as bad as things might have been during the Depression, they would have, according to Libertarian economists, improved on their own without interference in the free market.

The Authoritarians were now homeless. First, many of them bolted from the Democrats and formed the Dixie-crats, so named because they were mostly from the South, the land of Dixie. But again, like most third parties in America, they didn't get very far on their own.

The next several decades of the mid-20th Century were spent undergoing an eerie and ironic political re-alignment of sorts that has resulted in the current Perverted Paradigm.

First, racial minorities left the very party that had freed them for the party that had been keeping them enslaved, an irony indeed.

Libertarian Republicans were pointing to the totalitarianism of America's Economically Progressive enemies in the Cold War as proof of the folly of interfering with the market and undermining the Constitutional rule of law. And fearing the potential for power to corrupt, the Constitution was amended yet again, to limit presidential terms to two.

Meanwhile, Authoritarians, who were trying to navigate both parties, were able to seize on the Cold War's widespread paranoia and fear. The Soviets got the bomb, and made overtures toward taking over the world, they noted. Authoritarians also pointed out how much worse off white people were now that racial "progress" had come about. When "Liberal" Justices on the Supreme Court desegregated the schools, Authoritarians were all too happy to point out how white people's "freedom" and "states rights" were being undermined by "unelected" federal judges. Authoritarians also pointed out that those "Progressive" enemies overseas were "Godless Commies," and began infusing religion into printed money and the Pledge of Allegiance. Progressives had erected public education, and Authoritarians infused religion into that.

McCarthyism then saw a brief Authoritarian heyday.

Interestingly, President Eisenhower, grew wary of the eeriness and irony amid which history was unfolding. Having seen first hand the horrors of the worst war in human history, Eisenhower warned against the "Military-Industrial Complex," in which a strong federal government and a strong military combined with international paranoia and corporate capitalism to fan the flames of fear, improve weaponry, and engage in war profiteering. Sound familiar? It was a Republican President who warned against it. Even more intriguing, though, is the fact that Eisenhower pondered quite seriously running as a Democrat! Almost destined to win the presidency as a bona fide war hero, he was courted by both major parties, and his decision to run as a Republican was motivated, in part at least, by a very real concern that McCarthy-style, fear-mongering Authoritarians might gain a stranglehold on the Republican Party without his more moderate influences, and those of his voters.

Somehow, amid the paranoia, Progressives reignited the pre-war process of social change. (Some claim that the reignition was sparked because the Kennedy family had rigged the 1960 election, which was closer than 2000's Bush v. Gore, and shrouded amid a similar controversy.) Powerful Progressive Democrats under the Presidential auspices of Kennedy and Johnson, continued to push for federal governmental growth to advance what they believed was good - Equality - through the Civil Rights Act, Title VII, and other anti-discrimination laws. Medicare and other "War on Poverty" and "Great Society" measures were added to Social Security in order to allow everyone to experience the American dream - which they believed was the essence of the American Constitution. The Counter-Culture (Hippie) movement sprung up, as did Civil Rights movements, and political minorities came to trust that Progressive Democrats would forever champion their rights. Forces of cultural change had been unleashed, but strangely amid a climate of international fear and paranoia................

{omitted sections}--->This is purely to save space, please e-mail for the complete version

...... Ultimately, the culture was changing dramatically and the Progressives were powerful but chaotic. Neither the Authoritarians nor the Libertarians were able to stop any of what was happening - at least neither camp could stop any of it on its own......
Continue to next section

Perverted Paradigm, p.6

2005-10-22T18:02:00.000-07:00

Stage II, Phase 3:
Authoritarian and Libertarian Republicans vs. Waning Progressive Democrats

I think that somehow, it began to dawn on both the Libertarians and the Authoritarians (though I doubt anyone was consciously aware of it at first) that the only way to stop the Progressives, would be to merge. Strange bedfellows were aligned yet again, but the reduction of Progressive government and restoration of "the old way" now united two otherwise opposed philosophies.

If the merging of racial minorities and the once Authoritarian Democratic Party was ironic, the merging of the Authoritarians and the Libertarians under what we now understand as Republican, is, in my mind, perhaps the greatest irony of American history. It's so mind-blowingly ironic that I have trouble wrapping my head around it. And so do Progressive Democrats. Today's "Liberals" if one must use the term, just absolutely do not understand what's happened. Democrats simply can not comprehend why they have lost the government or what's going on around them. Partly because it happened very slowly, from the 1940s to the 1990s, before they had a chance to realize that it was happening. Much in the way you could kill a frog by placing it under a heating lamp, and turning the heat up in very tiny increments. The frog won't notice how hot it's getting until it's on fire, by when, it's too late.

Hubert Humphrey, who had not won (or even run in) a single primary, emerged from the chaotic 1968 Democratic Convention as the party's challenger to Republican Richard Nixon. In yet another historical irony, Humphrey (Johnson's vice president) was seen as the "War Candidate," while Nixon (Eisenhower's vice president) was seen as the "Peace Candidate," and the one who could end the quagmire in Vietnam.

Nixon's 1968 campaign was famous for its "Southern Strategy." Heading up the Republican Party, Nixon realized full well the advantages of merging Authoritarianism and Libertarianism, and openly pandered to the Authoritarians. He welcomed them with open arms, assuring displaced Dixiecrats that racism and religious bigotry had a place under the Republican tent. And join that tent they did! Strom Thurmond, for instance, spent 6 decades in American government, first as a powerful Authoritarian Democratic governor, then as a not-so-powerful Dixie-crat, and finally finding a home as an Authoritarian Republican in the U.S. Senate. What a remarkable faux-transformation.

Nixon's administration became famous for its outright corruption, and Nixon to date is the only president to have resigned while in office. With the Authoritarian South slowly turning Republican, Progressives knew they could only recapture the White House with a Southern Democrat - progressive but pious - and they found him in Jimmy Carter. Carter's reign, however, fell quickly as the international climate was still paranoid and fearful. The Cold War still presented dangers, and Carter suffered from the "wimp factor." He was perceived as soft - soft on evil, godless Communism, soft on terrorism and hostage-taking, soft on crime. Economically, the country was suffering from stagflation. The world was suffering, and the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the Presidency. Something was bound to change.

What happened, of course, was that the Libertarian-Authoritarian Alliance found its hero - Ronald Reagan - marking the official beginning of the Perverted Paradigm in which we operate today.

Reagan (a former Democrat himself) championed both Libertarianism and Authoritarianism under the rubric of small government. There were problems in the country, and Reagan identified a cause whose message, if not its truth, resonated. Remember the thunderous applause to the line, "Government is not the solution to your problems. Government IS the problem?" That right there is what the Democrats can't grasp. How is it, they ask, that dismantling what they see as properly protective of human rights, while passing Draconian laws that regulate individual lives in terms of their religion and sex lives and social roles, be a good thing? And how exactly is it compatible with the Constitution?

Reagan championed the Restoration of the Constitution, with a Jurisprudential Concept called Originalism. The concept is nothing new, although its name is. It just means that when judges make their decisions, they ought to be following the Original Constitution as designed by the Founding Fathers (or the framers of later amendments), and not anything else. Both Libertarians and Authoritarians see this as necessary. Later, I'll explain how Progressives can co-opt the term. For now, though, it should be recognized that while the Libertarian claim is, in many ways, legitimate and defensible, the Authoritarian claim is NOT. Authoritarians want nothing to do with the original Constitution, unless it serves their purposes. But, what Progressive Democrats don't understand, is that Libertarians believe that the Authoritarian approach to the Constitution is no different from the Progressive approach - that the Progressives like the Original Constitution, but only when it serves their purposes. To the extent that it does not, Libertarians say, Progressives are happy to dispense with it.

As Democrats make overtures on moving "culturally to the right," but somehow without abandoning their "liberal base," and with Republicans capturing the allegiance of two diametrically opposed kinds of voters - Libertarians and Authoritarians - is it any wonder that communication has broken down? "You don't really want small government," Progressives might say to Republicans. But our paradigm is perverted - Libertarian Republicans do want small government, and resent such statements by Democrats. "You want big government in our bedrooms," Progressives might say to Republicans. But again, our paradigm is perverted - Libertarian Republicans do not want government in our bedrooms. The Perverted Paradigm has rendered us unable to communicate with one another.

The Authoritarian/Libertarian Alliance now marks the essence of Conservatism. Once Communism had collapsed (and Reagan was credited with its collapse), the Authoritarian/Libertarian Alliance only became more and more popular. Championing America and Liberty meant fighting Progressivism and all its chaotic and destructive forces. Restoring America and Liberty meant going back to the times and culture of the original American Revolution - including all its brilliant insights (Liberty, the Constitution and Natural Rights) and all its contradictory culture (racism, sexism, old-fashioned morality.)

The modern Progressives tried again to showcase a Southern Democrat - Progressive but pious Bill Clinton - but new progressive movements, such as gay rights, have proven too culturally controversial to sustain a party that can't figure out where it stands along our perverted left/right spectrum, and Clinton's lifestyle proved to be anything but pious. His philandering playboy antics became the focus of national politics despite whatever good he was actually doing.
When the Authoritarian/Libertarian Republicans managed to capture both the House of Representatives and the Senate, the Progressive era officially came to a close. Over the next several years, it became perfectly clear that the Authoritarian Republicans would go to any lengths to get their way. Erect their own news channels. Bombard the public with propaganda. Impeach a Progressive President for nothing more than a sex scandal. Religious fundamentalism picked up again in the style of the old Authoritarian Democrat, William Jennings Bryan.

Phase 4 of the second stage of the American Revolution began. Republicans see it as the restoration of America in order to regain the footing of Revolution, Stage 1. Democrats see it as rolling back the clock on progress and retreating to the horrors of Revolution, Stage 1.

Meanwhile, the three true philosophies go unnoticed, communication is impossible, and the Perverted Paradigm is prominent.
Continue to next section

Perverted Paradigm, p.7

2005-10-22T18:01:00.000-07:00

Stage II, Phase 4:
The Prominence of the Perverted Paradigm
Authoritarian and Libertarian Republicans in Charge in a New Era of Paranoia

Prominent Authoritarian George W. Bush resides in the White House. Sept. 11, 2001 began a new era of paranoia and constant and continual war - the War on Terror. The terrorist acts of our new 21st Century marked the perfect element of fear and paranoia that the Authoritarians needed to solidify control. They'd used it throughout their existence even when they weren't officially in power - from WWI to the Red Scare to WWII to McCarthyism to the "Evil Empire" to the "Axis of Evil." Now, the contradictions and corruption of the Bush administration have led the American Revolution and the American Dream to the brink of suicide, something the Authoritarians had been hoping for since the Revolution began.

Moreover, the Authoritarians have infiltrated the Republican Party so brilliantly, that they have successfully co-opted Libertarian language. That's right! The Authoritarians now claim to be the champions of freedom and democracy and limited government. White male Christians are claiming they are oppressed at the hands of powerful racial minorities, at whose behest the Progressive Democrats have bloated the government. The word Liberal has been demonized as anti-American, because liberal means the big government, which means the end of freedom. In fact, anything a Liberal can want now means the end of freedom, whether it's the end of war, the separation of church and state, or social programs.

And the Progressives are scrambling about, unable to grasp what's going on. To Progressives, Originalism and Restoration can only mean "turning back the clock" on Progress. They have no vocabulary to express themselves that does not inevitably lead Republicans to believe that they are either naive, insincere or the enemy. When Democrats hear Republicans say "Freedom," it's mistrusted, and interpreted as "Slavery." And vice-versa. Each side believes that when the other says freedom, they actually mean slavery. Each side believes that when the other says Peace, they actually mean War. Authoritarians believe that the Press is Liberal, so they erected their own news stations and television channels to dispense Conservative news. All the buzz words mean everything and nothing, and objective truth is thought not to exist.

That's a bastardized version of 1984 and Newspeak!

Nothing we say means anything any more. When everyone is using the same words, but have something so completely different in mind, there just isn't any way to talk to one another. Liberal doesn't mean anything. Conservative doesn't mean anything. Freedom doesn't mean anything. They're all just silly buzz words that rally one side or the other into emotional frenzies. Every little statement becomes a soundbyte, and the focus of a media campaign. That its happening in a time of international paranoia unseen since the Russians got the bomb only aggravates the danger.

And the Authoritarians LOVE THIS!!!!!! They use it all the time to manipulate the political scene. An Authoritarian / Libertarian Republican Party is now able to attack someone like President Clinton as a big-government nut job, who also happens to be sexually immoral, and as such is worthy of Impeachment. And it doesn't matter to them that George W. Bush engaged in every conceivable Clinton-style hedonistic act or that Bush did so tenfold. He just keeps plugging "freedom," "democracy," and "God" and depending on what emotions those meaningless words evoke, he's either demonized or altogether forgiven.

To be fair, the Democrats also have an Authoritarian streak - Political Correctness stifles free speech, and Democratic "morality," for lack of a better term - such as constant patrolling of sexual harassment, hasty labeling as racist any statement that may or may not actually be so - all contribute (rightly or wrongly) to Libertarians' perception of the Democrats as an Authoritarian Party in its own right. Indeed, if any of the philosophies has been displaced and rendered homeless at this point in history, it's the Libertarians. Moreover, many Democrats will now begin framing their Progressive issues in Authoritarian terms. Just watch as they seek to tell us how welfare, caring for the poor, offering health care, etc, are all "moral" issues, issues of value, and culture, and even religion.

Don't misunderstand me! Racism, sexism, and sexual harassment are plagues, and must be fought with unyielding ardor! Moreover, it is not without merit to suggest that morality plays a role in Progressivism.

But Progressive Democrats will not win another election until they figure out what's actually happening. Complacency and confusion and the Perverted Paradigm have enabled the Authoritarians to align themselves successfully with the Libertarians in the political process. By now, Authoritarians have seized upon the New Deal Supreme Court's judicial restraint vis-a-vis welfare and economic regulation and morphed it into an attack on "activist judges" who strike down laws that violate the separation of church and state or that deny marginalized minorities the equal protection of the laws. They are pushing for a virtually unfettered "tyranny of the majority" in the name of "Democracy," "State's Rights" and [brace yourselves] "Freedom" and the "Will of the People." Indeed, that they have seized on another age of paranoia and fear to monopolize Libertarian vocabulary and force Progressives into Authoritarian vocabulary is nothing short of an Orwellian Coup.

If those who love liberty, equality and rationality, not to mention our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, are to extricate our country from what's happening without merely surrendering and becoming more like Authoritarians ourselves, we must break free from the Perverted Paradigm.
Continue to next section

Perverted Paradigm, p.8

2005-10-22T18:00:00.000-07:00

So what do we do?
The American Revolution, Stage III

I propose that the Progressives and the Libertarians merge into the only 2-on-1 alliance America has yet to witness. It's not hopeless! We can do that under the CLEaR Alliance, because indeed, both Libertarians and Progressives are champions of Civil Liberties, Equality and Rationality. We just don't realize it yet.

To whatever extent it seems crazy, it is phenomenally less crazy than the alliance that exists today between the Libertarians and the Authoritarians. That alliance has become the basic understanding of modern Conservatism and the modern Republican Party.

I imagine that many Libertarians, even the those who have officially joined the Libertarian Party, still see Republicans as the lesser of two evils between the Republicans and the Democrats. I imagine they also would be perfectly happy to dismantle everything the New Deal had set up, in order to return America to the time when the only two powerful camps were the Libertarians and the Authoritarians. For both Authoritarians and Libertarians, to have the Progressive Democrats go the way of the Whig Party (which disappeared after the once-dominant Democratic-Republicans split into the Whigs and the modern Democrats), would be wonderful, and I imagine Libertarians think they can win whatever battles they have to fight within such a structure after the remaining Republicans split into two camps. In a very real sense, such would RESTORE the country to the way things were at its Founding, with two visions - one Authoritarian, the other Classical Liberal. Progressivism will have become a parenthesis in American History, and the Libertarians can get themselves back on track to restoring their vision of the American Dream.

For Progressives, this is a nightmare, and they can't figure out how to approach it. The Democratic Party is now engaged in an internal Identity Crisis, and the internal debate that is raging concerns whether to be more like the Republicans or shout very loudly about our differences. While my sympathies as a Democrat lie with the latter of the options, I'm personally not willing to gamble with any of this, either the Internal Democratic Debate or the Libertarian vision. My personal politics, like, I imagine, most Americans, have never been perfectly compatible with either Political Party. Less likely than most people, however, I've always approached the world from some sort of synthesis of Progressivism and Libertarianism. My personal politics are CLEaR politics, and my personal vision for everyday life is a CLEaR vision - of an American Dream based on Civil Liberties, Equality and Rationality.

I don't want Progressivism to be a parenthesis in history!

I want the second stage of the American Revolution to be the parenthesis in history!

I want to tear down the Perverted Paradigm!

Life in America isn't hopeless! Libertarians and Progressives should have worked together since the Progressives first emerged on the political scene And even today, if we stand together, WE ARE THE MAJORITY! We will have many disagreements about how to achieve our common goals - but that's ok. (Actually, that's good. Debate, disagreement and competitive elections are good.)

I can't reasonably expect that everyone will think exactly the way I think about every political issue that might arise. And I wouldn't even want that. But as antithetical as Libertarians and Progressives may seem, I implore both Libertarians and Progressives to realize exactly what we have in common, and why we'd be so much better off working together.

As I proceed with a "manifesto" of sorts for the CLEaR Alliance, I will explain in detail how the political and jurisprudential and intellectual philosophies can work together to rescue America from the situation in which we now find ourselves, which, in an age of weapons of mass destruction, international realignment and lack of clear and coherent language, threatens everything both Progressives AND Libertarians (and for that matter, scientists, journalists, philosophers, religious minorities, sexual minorities, ethnic minorities and a host of other groups of people) hold dear about America.

I'll be quite ambitious about presenting a theory of Constitutional interpretation that works to restore, among other precious but lost clauses, the 9th and 14th Amendments, respect for Rationality and the Scientific Method, and a whole new electoral system that I believe can help American Democracy extract itself from the current political system, a system that the Authoritarians have all but taken over.

For now, though, I will put this very simply. Consider the following very carefully:

If one question were posed to a Progressive, a Libertarian, and an Authoritarian (admittedly, as I've defined the terms, into which nobody, not even me, could really fit perfectly) and they were each to answer perfectly honestly as to their beliefs, the simple answers to that question would reveal exactly why a Progressive-Libertarian alliance, and ultimately a broad CLEaR Alliance can work, and why it can defeat the Authoritarians that all Democrats truly and rightly fear. That question is:

Do you believe that each and every individual person, regardless of race, sex, ethnicity, religion, culture, lifestyle, sexuality, or any potentially imaginable, but not yet imagined, minority status, is equally, fully and substantively entitled, by virtue of nothing more than being alive, to the pursuit of happiness?

Or, more succinctly,

Do you believe that each and every individual is equally, fully and substantively entitled to the pursuit of happiness?

If each would answer HONESTLY, each admitting to being fallible, and having prejudices and faults and rationalizations.....

The Progressive would say YES.

The Libertarian would say YES.

The Authoritarian would say NO.

Recognizing that, my CLEaR-thinking friends, is how we escape the Perverted Paradigm, enable ourselves to talk intelligently and with clarity to one another again, and ultimately, RESCUE, RESTORE and FURTHER, the American Dream.

There may be some very hard political truths that Progressives will have to accept, and as a Progressive myself, I hope they will know that I understand how gut-wrenching it can be.

But as you read what I have to say, keep that basic question and their respective answers, in the back of your minds. And again, you may not agree with absolutely everything I might say on every particular political issue. That's ok. In fact, that's a good thing. The CLEaR philosophy is, and always will be, a work in progress, but it will never stray from its most basic and simple devotion - an idea, after all, that was once held self evident: that EACH AND EVERY INDIVIDUAL IS EQUALLY, FULLY AND SUBSTANTIVELY ENTITLED TO THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS!

The challenge will be to define the zone of civil liberties so that a rational government can ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to enjoy it. It's a goal that both Libertarians and Progressives share. Only the means to that end will be in conflict - but such conflict is what healthy democracies are all about. Imagine a government in which both major parties were dedicated to that goal!! Imagine a government where both major parties understood the basic premises of our Constitution and our Revolution!! Imagine it, and you will begin to understand why I'm hopeful! It will be difficult, it will take a looooooong time, and it will be gut-wrenching, but it can be done! It MUST be done!

So let us bring together a CLEaR Alliance.........

Not merely of

Progressive Democrats and Libertarian Republicans,

but also of scientists & teachers & journalists & linguists & skeptics & atheists & devout religious minorities & gay, lesbian and bisexual people & transgendered and intersexed people & entrepreneurs & anyone else whose freedom is threatened by the Authoritarians or who simply wants to join!

We're out there! We're share fundamental principles! We can work together to bring about a world devoted to Civil Liberties, Equality and Rationality! Join me, and we CAN work together. We can help one another think CLEaRly, and complete the American Revolution!

Welcome back to the Enlightenment; welcome back to the American Revolution.

Welcome to the CLEaR Alliance!
Continue to Conclusion

Notices

2005-10-22T17:31:00.000-07:00

Hi CLEaR Thinkers!
If you'd like to join us on and comment on the blog, by all means, drop us a note at liveliest.crib@gmail.com, let us know what brought you here, and we're happy to send you the invite to participate!

Special thanks
goes out to the Democratic Freedom Caucus for all their support and encouragement so far. The CLEaR Alliance strongly encourages Democrats especially, but also members of other parties concerned with Authoritarianism's growth in our country to check out this freedom-oriented, progressive-libertarian caucus!

Project
One thing we're working on is developing a database of office holders across the land, to determine how CLEaRly they think. Remember, we're not a third party, nor part of any party. We'd be pleased to endorse any CLEaR-thinking official from any party, and highlight their work, as well as red flag Authoritarian dangers. Wanna help? Know of a local politician, state politician, national representative you'd like to highlight? By all means! Blog away, and help us discover our CLEaR Allies already elected!

Perverted Paradigm, p.9

2005-10-22T17:19:00.000-07:00

Conclusion

American history has always involved the fight for freedom and equality against those who believe in neither. The ironic manner in which that history has unfolded has finally rendered those of us on freedom's side unable to think and communicate. Not only are we unable to convey our message to one another, but we are unable to recognize one another. If we begin to think and speak CLEaRly, we can recognize one another, and strike up a badly needed dialogue.

Our disagreements with one another will pale in comparison to the alliance we can build to defeat our common opponents.

In a CLEaR world, where Progressives and Libertarians unite to restore the American Dream, we can establish a government that would operate along a Liberal - Moderate - Conservative spectrum such that Progressives propose all sorts of solutions to real world problems of unequal liberty at the liberal end, Libertarians react skeptically to all of those programs' feasibility and unintended consequences at the conservative end, while the moderates temper both of us in between.

That would be a rational, excellent government that protected America as free and wonderful nation.

It will be difficult, but not impossible. We will always fight against freedom's enemies, but that will be so whether we ally together or not. As Thomas Jefferson said, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

I hope you'll join me in the CLEaR Alliance.

Join the CLEaR Alliance

2005-10-22T00:24:00.000-07:00

So, you'd like to join the fight for Civil Liberties, Equality and Rationality, fantastic! We're all a-flutter. ;)

Here's all that we ask of you:

Send an e-mail to liveliest.crib@gmail.com.

Include the word "CLEaR" in the subject heading.

Tell us:

1. Your name (first name only or nickname is fine, we just wanna be able to recognize you on the blog.)

2. Where you live (city/region and state (or foreign country, come to think of it))

3. How you heard about us.

4. What attracts you to CLEaR Thinking?

No pressure. :) You're free to answer as succintly as you'd like. Or, if you're inclined to write prolific volumes (like our founder Karen - whom we promise to reign in a bit) by all means go ahead! We'll read whatever you send, we'll write back to you, and we'll send you the invite to join the blog!

Thank you so much for your interest. Let's help one another think CLEaRly and restore the American Revolution!

The CLEaR Alliance Team
Karen, founder
Mike
Jordan
Steve

Thinking CLEaRly: Civil Liberties

2005-10-20T15:00:00.000-07:00

Civil Liberties: A Decidedly Libertarian Approach

Each and every individual person simply by virtue of being alive and having reached the age of consent, is entitled to a self-defined pursuit of happiness.

The outer limits of that pursuit are defined objectively, ONLY by the point at which that pursuit infringes on the rights of a non-consenting other person. And that's it. You are free to act in any manner you want as long as you don't harm a non-consenting other.

The non-consenting other's rights are in turn defined by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the concepts embodied in the laws of Tort, Property and Contracts. In general, such rights can be summed up in the following:

freedoms to: pursue happiness privately, contract privately with other persons, and enjoy property via ownership or lawful use;

freedoms from: bodily contact or injury, or substantial threat thereof;

due process: participation in democratic government, government enforcement of private contracts, deprivation of rights severely limited and only upon fair civil or criminal trials.

Thinking CLEaRly: Equality

2005-10-20T14:00:00.000-07:00

Equality: A Synthesis of Libertarian and Progressive Philosophies

Let's face it, Total Equality is impossible and undesirable. Liberty promotes individuality and diversity, not equality, and that's good. Capitalism promotes economic inequality, yet it's still good.

In fact, equality is such a slippery term, I'm never really sure what it means when used by an individual speaker or author. What I believe most thinkers desire when they invoke "equality" is for public policy makers to ascribe a sense of "equal normative worth" to each and every individual human being. Policy makers and governments ought to refrain from making any normative judgments about any person based on who he is, what he looks like, what he believes, what he desires. Indeed, the only legitimate normative judgments a policy maker may render about any person's empirical attributes concern what he does.

True, virtuous political equality, then, should be devoted to equal civil liberty. That is, within the zone of liberty, all people must have an equal opportunity to pursue happiness. No individual's ability to pursue happiness ought to be impeded by her life's circumstances, another individual, government, or the lack of government.

Equal Liberty depends not merely on the government's refraining from using its powers tyrannically, but also upon recognizing that tyrannical power may be acquired by entities other than the government itself. In order not to go overboard and become the kind of Progressivism that Libertarians fear, such a notion of equality can be guided by the standards and concepts of Procedural Unconscionability in Contract Law. I'll refrain from elaborating on such an academic and theoretical concept for now, and just illustrate it as such:

Each and every individual person is equally and fully entitled to the pursuit of happiness, wherein "happiness" is subjective defined by the individual herself, and "the pursuit" is objective and wholly substantive.

Government's only proper function is to protect and enhance the rights and liberties of each and every individual person.

It logically follows, then, that it is a proper function of government to proscribe and punish the unilateral actions of one person that infringe upon the rights and liberties of a non-consenting other person. Such marks the "upper boundary" of civil liberty, which even orthodox libertarians recognize.

But if the expression of an idea, or living by a certain lifestyle, or practicing a certain religion, makes it impossible to earn a living or to care for one's health, people are not free. Simply put, real world circumstances often militate against the pursuit of happiness and in favor of pure survival. At such a point, the choices an individual makes in order to survive can hardly be deemed voluntary or consensual, and her lack of ability to pursue her own happiness is unconscionably low. Such marks the "lower boundary" of civil liberty for a "progressive libertarian."

Sometimes those circumstances are a matter of reality, however regrettable, and a collective effort to rectify them is counterproductive. To the extent that those circumstances can be rectified, however, government is duty-bound to do so, and enable its citizens to pursue their own happiness.

The CLEaR Alliance, of course, welcomes anyone whose politics lean toward more orthodox, Laissez Faire Libertarianism as well as those whose Progressivism leans more toward Social Democracy. We must, of course, learn to listen to one another's ideas concerning Civil Liberties, Equality and Rationality. After all, our ultimate devotion is to the same principle - the equal and full right of all individuals to pursue their own happiness. We must cooperate and learn from one another in order to battle the real and growing threat the Authoritarians pose to that principle.

For those more interested in synthesizing Progressive and Libertarian thought into one cohesive philosophy, you are welcome to join the Libeqrat's Ring, and help us meet the "Equality Challenge." Oh, Libeqrat? Pronounced LIB-uh-crat, it's just another play on Liberty, Equality and Rationality. :)

The Equality Challenge

Laws that proscribe and punish action threaten liberty de jure. Real world circumstances threaten liberty de facto. The "Equality Challenge" for CLEaR thinkers is to unite progressives and libertarians to design a Zone of Civil Liberties with the upper boundary defined by the point at which unilateral pursuits of happiness infringe upon the rights of non-consenting others, and the lower boundary defined by the point at which real world circumstances negate an individual's ability to pursue happiness altogether. Ideally, government must act in a manner that lifts its citizens above the lower boundary without simultaneously pulling others below the upper boundary as a consequence. As the old adage goes, we seek the serenity to accept what we cannot change, the strength to change what we cannot accept, and the wisdom to know the difference.

Such a conceptual framework naturally implies a need to provide such progressive sacred cows as education, health care and welfare, and preventing employment discrimination - but all with the goal to protect and enhance the pursuit of happiness, rather than as "absolute entitlements" in and of themselves. Other "big government" schemes would naturally meet with skepticism. Moreover, under such a paradigm, tensions between "big government liberalism" and "small government conservatism" will be beneficial. As progressives and libertarians (along with scientists, teachers, journalists, minorities, etc...) join the CLEaR Alliance, we can work together to meet the Equality Challenge.

Thinking CLEaRly: Rationality

2005-10-20T13:00:00.000-07:00

Rationality: Respect for Science and the Human Mind's Ability to Reason

As a recent book explains, Authoritarian Republicans have declared War on Science. Ultimately, they have declared war on reason and the Enlightenment, and the very philosophy that has enabled us to advance medicine, technology, knowledge and freedom. This is, to be succinct, extremely frightening and completely unacceptable. Certainly, the CLEaR philosophy demands that each individual remain free to practice ANY religion or no religion, and even to reject science, medicine and technology privately. However, in order to secure the CLEaR notion of Equal Civil Liberty for everyone, the government must remain rational and scientific in its approach to public policy. Thus....

In passing laws, enforcing laws, and adjudicating disputes, the government must respect reason, and the human mind's ability to use observation, logic and communication to describe and manipulate the world.

Legislation should be arduous work that strives for linguistic clarity. Moreover, untempered or blinding ideology should be avoided.

Jurisprudence should respect the scientific method and concepts of doubt, as well as interpret the Constitution through a rational method of Objective Meaning and Rational Extrapolation of Principles.

The economy should be handled rationally. We should strive to balance our budgets, keep taxes low, and control our spending, and ensure that our actions are designed to protect and enhance an equal and fully substantive pursuit of happiness. Tensions between Progressives and Libertarians during elections will be beneficial in this respect, and once a legislature is elected, Progressives and Libertarians should work together to discover "what works." By the same token, both ideologies should be rationally tempered and neither camp should be afraid to admit something isn't working. (By the way....in my not-so-humble opinion, we could lower taxes phenomenally if we would stop spending money on ridiculous things like the war on drugs, vice cops arresting prostitutes and sending them through a revolving jail door, etc.. And if we did, there'd be lots of money for education and economic safety nets.)

Education - the paramount concern for a Progressive-Libertarian government - ought to be fearless. All thoughts and discussion thereof should be encouraged and entertained. People ought not to be afraid of learning about other lifestyles, ways of thinking, etc. And education ought to be based on enabling each and every individual to reason and think effectively for the outside world - which demands understanding and the scientific method and its uses - even if a free adult rejects it as a matter of philosophy privately. Of course, no beliefs or values should be forced upon anyone, but exposure to everything is a must. People must learn to separate empirical and normative claims, and no thought or idea should ever be out of bounds. Again, a delicate balance must be struck, erring on the side of respect for the human mind's ability to reason, to entertain thoughts without accepting them, etc.

FAQ #1

2005-10-19T18:00:00.000-07:00

Who Exactly Is Being Allied in the CLEaR Alliance?

Short Answer: Progressives and Libertarians (& a whole bunch of other groups concerned about out basic rights and liberties.)

See Comments for Longer Answer

FAQ #2

2005-10-19T17:59:00.000-07:00

And what exactly is bringing these people together?

Short Answer: A principle once held self evident - Every individual is equally, fully and substantively entitled to the pursuit of happiness.

Click Comments for Longer Answer

FAQ #3

2005-10-19T17:58:00.000-07:00

What's the point? What do you plan to actually do?

Short Answer: Engage one another to find common ground and recognize our common adversary, and together set our great country back on a course of protecting rights and liberties.

Click Comments for Longer Answer

FAQ #4

2005-10-19T17:57:00.000-07:00

What does membership require and entail?

Short Answer: Remain dedicated to the basic principle, fill out a simple form, and start talking!

Click Comments for Longer Answer

FAQ #5

2005-10-19T17:56:00.000-07:00

Do I have to be/not be a member of any particular political party to join the CLEaR Alliance?

Short Answer: Nope.

See Comments for Longer Answer

FAQ #6

2005-10-19T17:55:00.000-07:00

What's with the Acronym C.L.E.a.R.?

Short Answer: Civil Liberties, Equality and Rationality are the basics premises for, ahem, thinking and speaking 'clearly,' so that we can recognize one another, find common ground, and fight our common adversary.

See Comments for Longer Answer

FAQ #7

2005-10-19T17:54:00.000-07:00

Rationality, at least as the CLEaR Alliance uses the term, apparently invokes skepticism and science; are devout or fundamentalist believers in a religion thus disqualified from membership?

Short Answer: Nope. Devotion to the equal right to pursue happiness means supporting anyone's and everyone's right to practice any religion or no religion.

See Comments for Longer Answer

FAQ #8

2005-10-19T17:53:00.000-07:00

Do I have to agree with every particular stance on every particular political issue of the CLEaR Alliance to join?

Short Answer: Nope. Actually, that wouldn't make sense, since the Alliance at its core is one of people who approach different issues differently in the first place. To think and speak CLEaRly, one need only use Liberty, Equality and Rationality to reach a particular stance on a particluar issue, and justify that stance to others.

See Comments for Longer Answer

FAQ #9

2005-10-19T17:52:00.000-07:00

But I really do agree with CLEaR issues per se because it seems to mix Progressivism and Libertarianism - are there members who are working on synthesizing the two philosophies into one coherent idea itself, rather than just an alliance of otherwise competing ones?

Short Answer: Yes! That's the Libeqrat's Ring!

See Comments for Longer Answer

FAQ #10

2005-10-19T17:51:00.000-07:00

What do you mean by "Reignite the Enlightenment?"

Short Answer: The American Revolution fell in the time of the Enlightenment, when Science was valued, Freethought encouraged, and Liberty cherished. Let's get back to that!

Click Comments for Longer Answer

FAQ #11

2005-10-19T17:50:00.000-07:00

What do you mean by "Rescue, Restore and Complete the American Revolution?"

Short Answer: ``The Preamble to our Constitution says, "...in order to form a more perfect union...and secure the blessings of liberty..." It was an ongoing project. `In an age of terror, mistrust and divisiveness, we're forgetting that, and we need to get back on track.

See Comments for Longer Answer

FAQ #12

2005-10-19T17:49:00.001-07:00

What's with "Bill of Rights, Part 3?" I mean, when was Part 2? What was Part 2?*

*Heh, I realize I've only used this phrase once on this blog (as a title of available materials), but as it will be an integral part of the CLEaR Alliance website, I'm including it as an anticipated FAQ.

Short Answer: There never was an "official" part 2, though the idea of part two has been invoked at by different people at different times. But no matter how it's understood, it seems to be done. In order to form a more perfect union and secure the blessings of liberty, it's time for part 3!

See Comments for Longer Answer

FAQ #13

2005-10-19T17:08:00.000-07:00

What the heck is with liveliest.crib?

Liveliest Crib is an anagram for Civil Liberties! ;)

And all e-mails related to CLEaR are welcome at liveliest.crib@gmail.com