Discouragement isn't an option

For all of us who believe in liberty, yesterday’s ballot offerings all over the country were hardly inspiring. Predictably, the results this morning may be more than a little dispiriting. Just in case you might be feeling somewhat “down” at the moment, let me offer what I hope will be some cheerful thoughts. Eternal optimist though I am, I admit that when I looked at the morning papers the pessimist temptation briefly had me in its grip. Then I asked myself :What good purpose could a defeatist attitude possibly provide? Will it make me work harder for the causes I know are right? Is there anything about liberty that yesterday’s election disproves?

If I exude a pessimistic demeanor, will it help attract newcomers to the ideas I believe in? Is this the first time in history that believers in liberty have lost some battles? If we simply throw in the towel, will that enhance the prospects for future victories? Is our cause so menial as to justify deserting it because of some bad news or some new challenges? Do we turn back just because the hill we have to climb got a little steeper?

I think you know the answers to those questions.

This is NOT the time to abandon principles. I can’t speak for you but some day I want to go to my reward and be able to look back and say, “I never gave up. I never became part of the problem I tried to solve. I never gave the other side the luxury of winning anything without a fight. I never missed an opportunity to do my best for what I believed in, and it never mattered what the odds or the obstacles were.”

Let’s remember that we stand on the shoulders of many people who came before us and who persevered through far darker times. I think of the brave men and women behind the Iron Curtain who resisted the greatest tyranny of the modern age, and won. I think of those like Hayek and Mises who kept the flame of liberty flickering in the 1930s and ‘40s when the whole world must have seemed mad for statism in one form or another. I think of the heroes like Wilberforce and Clarkson who fought to end slavery and literally changed the conscience and character of a nation in the face of the most daunting of disadvantages.

I think of the patriots who shed their blood for American liberty and suffered through unspeakable hardships as they took on the world’s most powerful nation in 1776. I think of martyrs of the Reformation. And I think of the Scots who, 456 years before the Declaration of Independence, put their lives on the line to repel English invaders with these stirring words: “It is not for honor or glory or wealth that we fight, but for freedom alone, which no good man gives up except with his life.”

As I thought about what some of those great men and women faced, the obstacles before us today seemed rather puny. I’m ashamed that for a moment I let a little election get me down.

If you want my advice, we should not squander a second feeling bad for ourselves. This is a moment when our true character, the stuff we’re really made of, will show itself. If we retreat, that would tell me we were never really worthy of the battle in the first place. But if we resolve to let these tough times build character, teach us to be better and smarter at what we do, and rally our dispirited friends to new levels of dedication, we will look back on this occasion some day with pride at how we handled it. It’s already past 9 am. Have you made any calls to cheer anybody up yet?

Believe me, the folks who for the moment are basking in victory and salivating for the opportunities they may soon have to deploy more force and coercion in our lives are not divinely-inspired geniuses. They are not going to be the first bunch in the history of the planet to figure out how to make big government work. They are far more likely, in fact, to give those who believe in liberty some unique opportunities to drive home our arguments with more eloquence and effect than ever before. When they flop, will the right ideas be lying around, ready to go, to make change for the better? That depends on us. Will we rise to the occasion?

Use this time to think about how you can do more for liberty and do it better, reaching larger audiences in ways that turn lights on people’s minds. Support others who are working full-time on liberty’s behalf. INspire, don’t EXpire!

So in the course of a few hours, I’m happy to say I’ve traversed from a moment of despair to a smile and a sunny optimism, to an eagerness to accept the challenge and get down to work. To all those out there who are hoping people like you and me will go quietly into the night, just keep thinking that. You’re in for some unexpected surprises.

Onward and upward! Larry

Lawrence W. Reed is newly aboard as president of the Foundation for Economic Education in Irvington NY. He is also president emeritus of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Michigan, which he founded two decades ago.

Straws in the wind from California

"Last night’s results give me encouragement that the next conservative resurgence is only one election away," writes Republican state assemblyman Chuck Devore from California, where I knew him as a Claremont Institute Lincoln Fellow. Devore's blog post on Wednesday morning highlighted the solid passage of Proposition 8, which annuls the recent state Supreme Court mandate for same-sex marriage; the likely passage of Proposition 11, which would set up competitive legislative districts in the Golden State after the next census for the first time in memory; the likely election to Congress of Tom McClintock, conservative hero who contested Schwarzenegger to the finish line in the 2003 recall election...

...and above all, the untenable contradiction between California voters' big margin for Obama, an apparent liberal affirmation, and the inherently conservative message sent by their approval of Prop 8.

Out there on the left coast, something clearly has to give.

Adam Smith, joke or no joke?

The war on terrorism, meltdown in the financial markets, and now the election of Obama are watershed events. We seem to be crossing a divide from old to new. It has been obvious for some time that we as a people have struggled with the implications of now being in the 21st century.The old labels of conservative vs liberal and Democrat vs Republican suddenly seem time-worn and intellectually hollow. What will replace them? Editor: Fran Miller of Parker and Ross Kaminsky of Nederland, cadres in the local conservative conspiracy, got into it today over my request for interpretations of the election. You're reading Miller's opening salvo, which continues below. See further down for Kaminsky's comeback and the ensuing crossfire.

I believe a renaissance in our core beliefs and approaches must take root. It is abundantly clear that there is much confusion over the pros and cons of a capitalistic and market driven system as opposed to more socialistic and communitarian approaches. Our education system has failed to impart the nuances of how a market system that produces I-pods may not work when it comes to health care.

The education of our populace is an existential requirement that has been neglected in favor of patriotic boosterism and mudslinging. I strongly believe that unless a moral ecology, independent of political party and religious denomination can be instilled in our citizenry, the ruthless, self-maximizing behavior of man and his corporate organizations will prove to be destructive.

Please know, I am a political agnostic and only concerned with pursuing truth in ideas. I have long since abandoned engaging in any endeavor that seeks to promote the cult of personality or to derive my identity from any political party, religious institution or corporate entity.

Above all, yesterday's election proves that the people of this country want things to change. None of us really knows what that entails, but there is some deeply held intuition that we have been on the wrong path and it is not leading us where we want to go. In the future, for any organized group to be relevant and make a positive contribution they will have to transcend personal power seeking and work for the common good of the people. I don't care to participate in any group that fails to measure up to the spirit of that intention.

Kaminsky mildly responds...

Adam Smith pointed out that "ruthless self-maximizing behavior" only works when someone is providing a benefit to someone else. Presuming someone is behaving in a way which does not trample on the rights of others, one can not behaving in a "self-maximizing" way without contributing to the maximization of others. Therefore, in my view, the demonization of corporations and of profit-seeking is completely misplaced.

Miller returns a Montana horselaugh:

Quoting Adam Smith is a joke. Just because two people both enjoy something does not ethically legitimize it. The world is full of financial intermediary parasites who could not grow their own food if they tried. Which, by the way, is exactly the kind of person I want to avoid being around during the 21st century.

Kaminsky, ever the rationalist, persists:

Huh? I'm pretty certain I could grow my own food if I tried (and we do grow a bit of stuff), and certain I could shoot my own food, but what is the inherent virtue in that? Should everybody be able to do everything? Ever hear of comparative advantage?

Fran Miller can be reached at francismiller@comcast.net. Ross Kaminsky can be reached at rossputin@aol.com. Kaminsky's own thoughts about the Nov. 4 results are on his blog here.

Bait & switch by both parties

Those of us who have been through a few election cycles know that nothing really ever changes. Candidates make feel-good promises that could never really be implemented without some sort of consequence, and yet we buy into it, follow the hype, buddy up to our candidate and hammer in those yard signs. It seems both sides make the move to the center, contrary to how they historically have voted. This year the Democrats have especially done so, but to be fair and objective -- as if there was such a thing, anywhere -- my latest cartoon (posted in right column) lampoons both sides.

Tax cuts, strong defense, limited spending, pro small business, wait a minute, those are Republican talking points! Use the federal government to stop corporate greed? Now my side is sounding like Democrats!

Anecdotally, I occasionally hear individuals talking about how they will support a certain Democrat candidate because they promise to reach across the aisle and be bipartisan. When it was brought to their attention that said candidate was one of the most liberal in the House or Senate and has yet to reach across the aisle, according to readily available congressional records, those people merely replied with, “but now they say they will this time.”

A liberal will always be a liberal and a conservative will always be a conservative and a campaign promise is not worth a whole lot. It amazes me how some people vote based on what a candidate says rather than what a candidate has done.

McInnis: Off message or on?

Poor timing, poor judgment, or something more Macchiavellian, would be the only labels a team-playing Republican could put on former congressman Scott McInnis's self-glorifying remarks in both Denver dailies yesterday, to the effect he would have done better against Mark Udall for US Senate than Bob Schaffer is doing. The Denver Post, a Democrat-leaning paper, was delighted to put the story on page one. "McInnis' admission comes a week before state voters go to the polls and with Schaffer trailing by double digits in several surveys," Michael Riley wrote with smirking understatement. "Republicans say it may mark the beginning of a ferocious debate about the direction of the party if next week's election goes badly."

To say "may mark" and "if... goes badly" is to slide past the glaring fact that the ex-congressman's trumpet blast, coming right now, does open the debate and will in some degree make things go worse for the GOP next Tuesday.

The weak and oblique protestations by McInnis in the Post story that this wasn't meant as a shot at Schaffer are more explicit in the Rocky story. "McInnis said Tuesday he was simply responding to a question from an online news site about whether he could have beaten Udall if he had stayed in the race.... 'This wasn't a "Hey, could you have done a better job than Schaffer?"... Not at all. It was how does this party rebuild after the election and where is it going to go.'" Sorry, not very convincing. A seasoned pro like him doesn't "simply respond" to any media question big or small. Scott McInnis -- a friend of mine and usually an ally -- is a very smart guy who always engages brain before mouth moves.

Either he wants Schaffer and the ticket to win and just got way off message, or he expects them to go down, maybe even figures it will serve his goals if they do, and decided to get on a new message of his own right now -- toward the goal of a far more centrist Colorado Republican Party after 2008, a party that looks less like Allard, Schaffer, Tancredo, and Owens, and more like... Scott McInnis.