Bailouts beget corruption, history warns

Obama’s attempt to save America’s failing financial sector, automakers, etc., perhaps by nationalizing them, is classic socialism. It will result in failure not only of those industries but of our entire economic system. It will also produce the same massive societal corruption found in former states of the Soviet Union. I served as a Fulbright scholar in the former Soviet republic of Moldova about a decade after the end of the Soviet Union and observed how this culture of corruption continued to suppress freedom, initiative and economic growth.

f corporations are inefficient, they must either be made to be efficient or they must be allowed to fail. According to Joseph Schumpeter, destruction can actually be creative. If there is a need for the product the failing company produced, someone will step in the gap and produce to meet the demand. The fresh start provides the new company the opportunity to be free of the burdens which caused the inefficiency of the failed corporation.

If the government props up the inefficient corporation, it perpetuates the inefficiency and passes the cost on to the taxpayers and the entire economy as well. Like a communicable disease, this spreads the inefficiency from the corporation to the general economy and entire populace. Those not responsible for the inefficiency are now burdened unfairly, and that burden brings down more efficient businesses, who become burdened with the increased taxes necessary to prop up the inefficient businesses.

In this situation corporations are no longer seeking to respond to the needs of consumers to insure their viability, but to government which props them up. This is corporate welfare at its worst. The consumer loses his power to influence the market and is instead forced by the government to consume what is offered by mediocre, propped-up providers -- a situation artificially imposed upon them by politics.

Corporations find it more advantageous to cooperate with government than with the market. This close relationship between business and government elites, is akin to fascism in its truest sense which was how Mussolini attempted to run Italy in the 20s and 30s. It also corrupts both our economy and our government.

Access to government becomes the top priority of corporations, as they become more dependent on government than on consumers. Government officials began to manipulate the corporate sector and corporate executives begin to manipulate government.

This develops into a symbiotic relationship of corruption and inefficiency reminiscent of what resulted in the collapse of communism. It began with supposed noble and benevolent aspirations, and resulted in the worst of tyrannies and inevitably a far more profound collapse.

William Watson is a professor of modern history at Colorado Christian University.

Why we revere the name of George Washington

Sunday was the birthday of George Washington, honored for two centuries as the father of his country. What we should always remember must include his character and his judgment, as well as his great accomplishments. Although born (in 1732) to a prominent family, the young George’s father died, followed soon by his older brother. He was home schooled. He was a surveyor, farmer and superlative soldier before he became the statesman that presided over the framing of the Constitution and served as the first president of the United States.

George Washington’s character is revealed not only in what he did but in what he refused to do. He showed extraordinary leadership qualities while still a young man and quickly rose in the ranks of Britain’s army in the North American colonies. Several incidents tell us volumes.

Although British interference in the government of the colonies, including Washington’s native Virginia, aroused passionate protests and even calls for independence, he did not join in them. His neighbor, George Mason, soon to be author of the Virginia Bill of Rights, pressed him to support independence, but to no avail. As a soldier, Washington knew the high cost of that fateful step would be destructive war which he was already thoroughly familiar with.

But once Washington concluded, as the Declaration of Independence would put it, that "The history of the present King of Great Britain [wa]s a history of repeated injuries and usurpations all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States," he did not look back.

Better known is what Washington decided at war’s end. Having led the colonial armies to victory, the country was immeasurably grateful. This commanding general could have ruled as a dictator. But he resigned his commission and returned to private life. Hearing of this act of self denial, Britain’s King George III called Washington "the greatest man in the world."

Rivaling this act of surpassing virtue, Washington in 1784 personally intervened to prevent a mutiny by his fellow officers over the failure of the Continental Congress to pay their long-overdue salaries. He read his prepared remarks only after he produced his glasses, necessary he said because of the cost of "service to my country." That gesture alone may have convinced these angry and dangerous men that, however just their grievance, they should respect the authority of the Congress, the only government they had and the one they fought for.

And then there was the unfortunate fellow who suggested, in light of the weakness of the confederacy and the early state governments that preceded the national government under the Constitution, that Washington should become king. His reply not only was righteously indignant but was a reprimand for which the recipient apologized for the rest of his life.

Washington was a man of great dignity that he knew was necessary for the leader of a new nation. Gouvernor Morris of Pennsylvania, a delegate to the Federal Convention of 1787 won a bet with fellow delegate Alexander Hamilton that he would have the nerve to slap Washington on the back in a display of close familiarity. But when Washington gave him a cold stare, he knew his triumph came at a very steep price.

Washington, like the Roman general Cincinnatus that he admired and modeled himself after, was reluctant to take on duties and honors of which he graciously declared himself unworthy. He had to be persuaded to attend the Federal Convention, at which delegates unanimously elected him president. He seldom spoke, his August presence being enough to discourage frivolous speech or behavior.

Twice Washington was unanimously elected President of the United States by the electoral college, the only person ever to be so honored. His voluntary retirement, despite the fact that the Constitution placed no limits on the number of terms served, is in perfect harmony with his prior decision to resign his commission after leading America to independence. He had launched the government and could move on.

The detractors of government by the people believe that it is fatally prone to instability and confusion, not to mention ineptitude. But Washington’s life and actions teach us that the completion of our form of government consists in the elevation to office of the greatest characters. Washington’s greatness is not incompatible with self government. It is indispensable to it.

It is no accident, then, that James Flexner, author of a recent biography of Washington, should have called him "The Indispensable Man." For government is not just about power, rule and authority but requires good character.

Father of our country

Slated on Backbone Radio, Feb. 22 Listen every Sunday, 5-8pm on 710 KNUS, Denver... 1460 KZNT, Colorado Springs... and streaming live at 710knus.com.

Who is your exemplar of the model American? Mine is George Washington. Even as the city named for him seems tarnished and small, the Father of our country stands tall across the centuries. We're in awe of Washington's valor in persevering to victory against all odds in America's war of independence. Washington's self-denial in surrendering his command when he could have been king. His wisdom in chairing the Constitutional Convention. His integrity in demonstrating what the Presidency should be. His nobility in standing down after two terms.

The nation once honored this giant on his birthday every Feb. 22. Now he is marginalized in memory, diminished in textbooks, irrelevant to current issues and politics. That's wrong. All of us, as patriots, are George Washington's spiritual descendants. Backbone as he exemplified it is our keynote this Sunday.

** What's next from Obama and Congress, now that the stimulus monster has been birthed? I'll talk with Katie Packer of the Workforce Institute about card check and the labor unions... and with DA Ken Buck about illegal immigration.

** How do Colorado conservatives get back on offense? I'll talk with Amy Oliver of the Independence Institute about transparency legislation... with CU Regent Tom Lucero about academic freedom and clean government... and with GOP vice-chairman candidate Leondray Gholston.

At the inaugural, our new president quoted General Washington. Fair enough. But try to imagine Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden at the commander's side at Valley Forge, deliberating with him at Philadelphia in 1787, or in his cabinet during the French crisis in 1793. Citizens have their work cut out with these mediocrities in charge. Let's get to it.

Yours for self-government, JOHN ANDREWS

Obama misrepresents Lincoln

We have grown accustomed to Barack Obama invoking the name and memory of Abaham Lincoln, this day of the 16th President's 200th birthday being no exception. But even in this brief news article, our current President manages to be so grossly wrong in his lessons and parallels that is almost laughable. Here it is:

Obama urges Americans to follow Lincoln's example

By BEN FELLER Associated Press Writer

Published: Thursday, Feb. 12, 2009

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama called on citizens Thursday to follow Abraham Lincoln's example of showing generosity to political opponents and valuing national unity - above all else.

At a ceremony in the stately Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol marking the 16th president's 200th birthday, Obama said he felt "a special gratitude" to the historical giant, who in many ways made his own story possible. On Thursday night, Obama, the nation's first black president, will deliver the keynote address at the Abraham Lincoln Association's annual banquet in Springfield, Ill.

As lawmakers and guests looked on, Obama recalled Lincoln's words in the closing days of the Civil War, when the South's defeat was certain.

Lincoln "could have sought revenge," Obama said, but he insisted that no Confederate troops be punished.

"All Lincoln wanted was for Confederate troops to go back home and return to work on their farms and in their shops," Obama said. "That was the only way, Lincoln knew, to repair the rifts that had torn this country apart. It was the only way to begin the healing that our nation so desperately needed."

A day after House and Senate leaders agreed on a costly economic stimulus plan that drew scant Republican support, Obama said, "we are far less divided than in Lincoln's day," but "we are once again debating the critical issues of our time."

"Let us remember that we are doing so as servants to the same flag, as representatives of the same people, and as stakeholders in a common future," Obama said. "That is the most fitting tribute we can pay and the most lasting monument we can build to that most remarkable of men, Abraham Lincoln."

Surely Obama is correct to call attention to Lincoln's generosity following the Civil War, a powerful symbol indeed. But it is one thing to forgive rebels after they have been defeated following four long, bloody years of battle. It is something else to summon up such virtue when it is not called for. Is Obama forgiving Republicans for losing the election?  Should they be returning to their homes or more likely simply retreating in the face of the Democratic victory not only in November but even the predictable victory on the "stimulus" [re: Big Government] package flying through Congress? Is asking your political opponents, in other words, to roll over and play dead an example of Obama's magnaminity? Shouldn't that be reserved for graver situations than getting bills passed? We should be pleased, I suppose, that Obama and congressional Democrats aren't seeking revenge! (Although congressional committees are planning to hold hearings on possible Bush Administration "war crimes.")

As to the plea for unity, Obama is not even close. When Lincoln ran for President, nay, as he campaigned against the spread of slavery for six years prior following passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act that permitted slavery to go into the Western Territory under the deceptive slogan of "popular sovereignty," he was hardly calling for unity but accepting the unavoidable consequence of hard and bitter division over the nation's most pressing issue. He was denounced for uttering the Biblical saying that "A house divided against itself cannot stand," which put the onus on pro-slavery Democrats for dividing the nation even as he knew that existing divisions would be exacerbated. It was the speech, as political philosopher Harry Jaffa has written, that changed the world, for it made clear that Lincoln was prepared to accept  "disunity," and even Civil War, to prevent slavery from being enshrined forever by the imperialist impulses of its apologists and advocates.

If Lincoln was denounced for recklessly dividing the nation, not to mention stirring up war, that was unfair, but it is even more unfair to misrepresent Lincoln when he knew that fighting for the equal rights of all under a central government able to exercise its constitutional authority after a free and fair election, was the right thing to do, even if it "divided" the country.

Doubtless Obama will not abandon the useful device of brow beating his opponents with the authority of Abraham Lincoln. Thus, we who know what Lincoln's statesmanship actually consisted of, should not hesitate to point out his errors. It is our turn to "speak truth to power."

Abraham Lincoln truly was a great man

In his famous Lyceum Speech in 1839, Abraham Lincoln expressed his hope that George Washington would always be revered. Little did Lincoln know that he too would be revered and that more would be written about him than anyone except Jesus Christ. Lincoln’s fame is deserved. He did not run for President simply to hold the office. Rather, he sought the office in order to deal with the nation’s greatest crisis. When the Civil War ended, the nation finally ended slavery, the institution that massively contradicted our nation’s principles.

Not only that, the end of slavery invigorated commerce and caused a steady rise in the standard of living for millions of Americans. Whereas the nation once had enslaved nearly half of its population and had provided limited opportunities for much of the other half, after war’s end it turned its energies to an industrial revolution that made America rich and powerful.

Millions of Americans admire Lincoln for his statesmanship, yet some on the extreme left and right accuse him of hypocrisy, offenses against the Constitution and even tyranny. These charges are false.

The black power movement and remnants of Confederate sympathizers would seem to have little in common, but in fact both have denounced Lincoln. Both believe that Lincoln didn’t really care as much about freeing Americans of African descent as he did in wielding power. Their common error, to put it charitably, is to ignore the circumstances in which Lincoln’s statesmanship was employed.

In his campaign against the spread of slavery following passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854, Lincoln found himself in the middle between passionate abolitionists who disregarded public opinion, and pro-slavery men who were determined to spread slavery wherever they could.

There was no majority in favor of the abolition of slavery, but many Americans were determined to prevent domination of the country by slavemasters. This position was grounded in the judgment that slavery was wrong and, though too powerful to be abolished, must be prevented from spreading.

We need to understand that when slavery was legal most people were slow to turn against it. Lincoln walked a fine line in the North between those few who favored abolition and many more who hated slavery because it had brought Negroes into the country.

Lincoln contended that slavery was wrong because it denied the fundamental rights of human beings, and that its expansion ultimately threatened the rights of whites no less than blacks. Color may have been an excuse but it hardly limited the desires of slave masters.

Lincoln was reviled by northern Democrats for declaring in his 1858 Senate campaign in Illinois that "a house divided against itself cannot stand." Lincoln invoked that Biblical passage to condemn the efforts of slavemasters to make slavery national. He did not call for the abolition of slavery where it existed.

Lincoln did not originally support full civil rights for those held as slaves for such a goal was not yet possible. It was enough that slavery should be restricted to where it already was.

Fortunately, more Americans opposed than supported the spread of slavery and even more the attempt at secession by 11 southern states. While both abolitionists and Democrats wavered in the face of rebellion, Lincoln never abandoned his determination to preserve the Union or his commitment to the ultimate extinction of slavery.

After hundreds of thousands of Americans became casualties in a terrible conflict, it became clear to Lincoln that the war could no longer be fought simply to preserve slavery. As a war measure, as well as to propound a greater purpose, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed slaves in rebel states and thereby encouraged them to abandon their masters and even to join the Union Army.

Lincoln was no usurper, but he did not hesitate to use his powers to preserve the Union. When the Maryland state legislature met to vote for secession, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and arrested all those who intended to take that fateful step. The loss of Maryland would have isolated the nation’s capital behind rebel lines.

As political philosopher Harry V. Jaffa has written, President Lincoln in dealing with rebellion exercised extra constitutional power to protect freedom, in contrast to Confederate President Jefferson Davis, who may have been more scrupulous but was dedicated to preserving slavery. That made all the difference.

This Thursday, Feb. 12, we should honor Lincoln on the 200^th anniversary of his birth, for he well deserves the titles of Savior of the Union and Great Emancipator. He saved America for freedom.