ANTI-ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPER

ANTI-ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPER

There has been much vilification of the Constitution by the Statists and the Libertarians.  We shall ignore the Statists as being beyond remedial correction, for now.

It is the libertarian movement of Lew Rockwell, Ralph Raico, and the many others over at the Von Mises Ludwig Institute that concerns the supporters of Constitutional Federalism.

The Federalist Papers, written as individual freestanding essays, organized into a single volume with an underlying direction are well known.  They appeared in newspapers throughout the young United States.  Their purpose was clear; it was to make the case that the new Constitution was superior to the Articles of Confederation.  The Articles created a very loose confederacy of sovereign states.  The Central Government was absolutely a creature of the States.  It could recommend that the States fund it.  It restricted itself purely to being the interface of the united States and the rest of the world.  The lower case “u” in “united” is not a typo.  The Articles were an agreement among sovereign States that had agreed to present a common front to the world in regard to foreign policy, defense and trade.  The weakness of this system was made manifest in the financial turmoil and terrible credit rating of the new nation.  The Army was disbanded but for a small force to defend against Indians.  Even so, the Army leaders were often bedeviled by the actuality of being made up of Thirteen Armies.  The Congress could pass laws that required the States to fund the, but left the manner of collection to the states.  In the final analysis many times the States welshed on promises made in the Congress.  Though the call for the Constitutional Convention occurred before the outbreak of Shay’s Rebellion, this near anarchic state of affairs in western Massachusetts focused the delegates’ minds.
Shay’s Rebellion was due to the lack of circulating money and credit.  The individual states were saddled by debt run up in the Revolution.  Some states with land claims that were established in the early 1600’s claimed their western end was at the Pacific Ocean!  Thus, Virginia Pennsylvania, and North Carolina were selling their western lands across the Appalachians, and paying down their debts.  The New England States did not have claim to western lands.  Thus Massachusetts, suffered high state taxation, and severe monetary contraction.
The Articles were clearly not working.
The States sent delegates to a Convention to “fix” the problem with the Articles.  However, they voted themselves the authority to do away with it and start from scratch.
Once completed it had to be ratified by the States.  The Constitution created a far stronger and a more robust Federal Government than many had expected.  The fear of the replacement of the King of Britain by an American tyrant was hardly the reason the Revolution was fought!  To allay these fears, and to support the case for the Constitution, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison in concert wrote a series of articles published in the newspapers of the day.  They were read and discussed in taverns and Coffee Houses through out the United States.  That the newspaper-reading public could and would read their lengthy arguments replete with historical references is an embarrassment to our present citizenry!  Not even the New York Times today would be able to attract a readership for this writing style.  (Or better, what the NY Times-readers think of themselves would be diminished if these articles were the talk of Starbucks!)
There never was an organized response called “the Anti-Federalist Papers”!  Many dissenting voices wrote.  Many articles appeared in many newspapers with dire warnings of a too powerful central government.
WIKI: “Major Anti-Federalist authors included Cato (likely George Clinton; Brutus (likely Robert Bates), Centinel (Samuel Bryan), and the Federal Farmer (either Melanchthon Smith, Richard Henry Lee, or Mercy Otis Warren). Speeches by Patrick Henry and Smith are often included as well.

One of the major points of the articles was the danger the new Constitution would bring without a statement of individual rights. Some of the Anti-Federalist concerns were addressed in the Bill Of Rights, which was added later. Historian Ralph Ketcham comments on the opinions of Patrick Henry, George Mason and others who were not so eager to give up the local autonomy won by the revolution:

Anti-federalists feared what Patrick Henry termed the “consolidated government” proposed by the new Constitution. They saw in Federalist hopes for commercial growth and international prestige only the lust of ambitious men for a “splendid empire” that, in the time-honored way of empires, would oppress the people with taxes, conscription, and military campaigns. Uncertain that any government over so vast a domain as the United States could be controlled by the people, Antifederalists saw in the enlarged powers of the general government only the familiar threats to the rights and liberties of the people.

The Anti-Federalists (with their “a ‘splendid empire’ that, in the time-honored way of empires, would oppress the people with taxes, conscription, and military campaigns”) indeed seem to have been prescient.  But to make the case that it was the Constitution as ratified to some degree through the efforts of Hamilton, Jay and Madison that is to blame is a facile argument.
The Von Mises; Neo-Confederate wing of the libertarians have vilified Alexander Hamilton.  No matter is it that he was mortally wounded in a duel with the truly villainous Aaron Burr!  As the Constitutional Regime became operative, the Ideal of Gentlemen Leaders rising up above the pettiness of self-interest to legislate wisely became less than obvious.  However the United States lacked the numbers of truly wealthy Gentlemen of Britain.  Collecting rental money on their landed estates and becoming leisured, refined and educated with the ideals of the Enlightenment, worked in Britain.  Though Southern Plantation owners approached that level of “Gentility” they had to keep a sharp eye on the Tobacco markets, on their overseers, and on their slaves.  They were not as independent of interests as the British squire.  The Northern pretenders to Gentry were even more seen as poseurs.
The divide became between the Federalists and the Republicans.  The concept of parties was at first resisted.  Party was looked down upon from the lofty heights where men like President Washington existed.   The idea that men fresh from the mechanic shop, the shoemaker, the tradesmen of all kind could have a political opinion was just so unexpected.
Though the anti-Federalists objected to the ratification of the Constitution, as mentioned above, much of their impetus was taken by the addition of the Bill Of Rights.
Thus the current habit of setting The Federalist Papers symmetrically against the Antifederalists is glib and false.  For one, the former were a standard canon of essays by the three men; Hamilton, Jay and Madison.  There was never any official canon of writings or writers ever organized into The “Anti-Federalist Papers”.  The Complete Anti-Federalist, was written by Herbert J. Storing (1928-1977), a professor of Constitutional History and Law, The Federalist Papers, and, most notably, the Anti-Federalists. Prior to his death at the age of 49 he had completed most of his annotated seven-volume collection of Anti-Federalist writings, The Complete Anti-Federalist that was later completed by his former student Murray Dry.
Thus the “Anti-Federalist Papers” is a creation of the Twentieth Century.  It is today becoming popular and is a rally point for the resistance to the overweening Federal Government.
The Financial Leviathan of the Fed and other Global interests are seen as the conspiring against individual Americans’ Liberties, and against the interests of the USA.  This is something I agree with.

However, to trot out Alexander Hamilton as the demonic tool of International Banking is foolish.
The debates between Hamilton and Jefferson became enflamed even more by their opposing feelings on the French Revolution.  Hamilton the Anglophile who admired Britain’s ability to fund its military and her allies against the French Revolutionaries and later against Napoleon, was despised by the Francophile Jefferson who was not adverse to the guillotine and revolution.
In retrospect who was right?  What if Jefferson’s way prevailed.  They nearly resulted in Civil War, in the crisis of 1807.  The preceding Federalist, John Adams, was inherently disgusted at the violence ripping apart French society.  He armed US trading vessels to fend off the attacks by France on ships bound to Britain.  He was alarmed by the presence in the United States of French Revolutionaries.  Jefferson had even put one on the Federal payroll at his State department, during Washington’s last term.  Adams passed the Alien and Sedition Act out of a real fear that certain foreign intriguers were kindling the Revolutions sweeping Europe.  This “proved” the fears of the Jeffersonian/ anti-Federalist party called the Republican-Democrat Party.

To conflate all this with Hamilton’s financial construction at Treasury is to miss the point.

It was Hamilton’s plan for the Federal Government to assume the debts of all the States incurred during the American Revolution.  This debt had been discounted sharply as it became more and more evident that the government under the Articles would never be able to repay it.  Indeed, “money interests” bought it up at sharp discounts.  But when the US Constitutional Government agreed to make good on the entire debt, those who sold low hoping to save something from a bad investment lost out; because the Treasury paid face value, 100%.  This actually did benefit the “money men”.  But, it also benefitted the Credit of the USA.  That Credit allowed for the greatest growth of national size, wealth and power in world history!
Let us not wring our hands over the tyranny in the Federal Government and leave it at the feet of Hamilton and the Federalists.  Federalism stipulated checks and balances on the Federal and State Governments and between the Executive, legislative and Judiciary.  What we have now is no longer Federalism.  The fact is that Anti-Federalists if they had prevailed, the United States would never have become the greatest power in world history.  Too many of the Lew Rockwells prefer a weak America, rather than an imperial one.  However a weak America would have not survived the 1820’s let alone the Civil War.  No coincidence that the Von Mises Club considers Abraham Lincoln a tyrant.  They would prefer a multitude of weak independent states, perhaps involved with rival European powers, being passive in the world rather than the active America of modern history.  No they do not long for slavery.  But they believe the “sanctity” of States’ Rats supersede the benefits the Constitution have provided.
To go Anti-Federalist now is not to return the Federal Government back to its Constitutional size and mission.  It will distract from the better chances of the return to the Constitutional checks and balances that allowed the USA to produce more wealth for more people than any other nation in all of human history!

ALL LIBERTARIANS ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL

NOT ALL LIBERTARIANS ARE CREATED EQUAL

The idea that Libertarianism is monolithic must be corrected. It is also important to point out that extreme Libertarianism in international affairs differs from Globalism in no particular manner.
(“Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace”)

The Radical Austrians perceive international borders to be illiberal impediments to people, capital, goods and services.
(“You, you may say 
I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will be as one”
)
Many Ron Paulistas dream the same dream.  I am surprised, however that the most fierce of foes of sinister globalism, Alex Jones, and his clones are Paulistas.
Libertarian Constitutionalists agree on the premise that the Constitution as the Framers conceived it is the best hope of maintaining a Liberal republic.  It is the Constitutional piece that is required to maintain liberty; and unfortunately I am detecting a nascent anti-Constitutional, or anti-Federalist contingent within the Libertarian ranks.  The rise of those who would exhume Alexander Hamilton and exile him from the Pantheon of American Founders is an ominous sign of how far down the path of Anti-Federalism the Austrian Schooled radical libertarians wish to go.  Coupled with the sudden urge to “honestly” deal with Abe Lincoln, and declare him a Tyrant, by some of the supporters of the movement behind Ron Paul is concerning.  It becomes evident that even if the Constitution were to be fully restored there would remain legitimate differences in the policies that various interests would seek.  Indeed, when the Federal Government no longer is in charge of picking winners and ameliorating the losses of certain losers, there would remain a legitimate diversity of interests that would still need to be sorted out through deal-making and compromise of Representatives and Senators.  The return of legitimate Constitutional government would represent the beginning of new political debates; and this is good.  But it will raise the question of: now, what shall our reinvigorated Liberal republic do; how shall it conduct itself in the society of other sovereign nations and states?

How shall the Federal Government use the legitimate powers conferred upon it to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”?  These are political issues that are legitimate debates within a constitutional republic.  However, Dr. Paul and his followers have taken particular stances on some of these issues and have made them into tests of loyalty to Libertarian Doctrine, which they aren’t.

What if someone who is less enamored with the Constitution than another candidate, but the other candidate reflects one’s own opinion of a policy that is believed to be superior to the Constitutionalist’s proposed use of Constitutional power?

For instance: Trade Policy.

Trade Policy is to be set by the Congress: Article one; section 8; third paragraph “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”.

The dogmatic Radical Austrian ideological libertarian insistence upon Free Trade as a logical corollary to individual liberty is at odds with the Constitution.

So if a candidate A is in favor of a nationalist trade policy, (Dr. Paul admits that setting Trade Policy with foreign states is a legitimate Federal power in “End The Fed”) but believes it to be illiberal, and not only bad on a practical level, but evil for its reduction of liberty, what to do?
Unfortunately there is no candidate A! (That would have been the Pat Buchanan Constitutionalist that never showed up for this campaign season; it might have been Michele Bachmann, or Sarah Palin. Alas.)

And if candidate B is in favor of a very forward Naval defense policy  (as Constitutionally laid out in Article One, section 8, paragraph 13: “To provide and maintain a Navy;” to ensure American preeminence over the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans; the God-given moats that will forever guarantee our Independence, then I ask what of the equally Constitutionally minded Dr. Paul’s evisceration of America’s forward and yes, offensive control of the Seas?  Agreed, that the very idea of a single pair of “boots on the ground” in the middle of Central Asia is as absurd as landlocked Mongolia investing in a Navy!  But, America has evolved from the antebellum days. No longer divided into a Northern modernizing commercial republic producing wealth through increasing industrialism, agricultural but becoming a major player in international commerce; and a Southern fossilized remnant of Cavalier Britain before their Civil Wars.  The Cavaliers, or Royalists were based upon a landed gentry with aspirations to nobility.  They derived their wealth from agriculture and rentals.  They scorned the upstart Middleclass with their Reformed Protestant chapels.   They, the new Bourgeois, or Middleclass, were represented by Parliament.  They were the shop keeps, the craftsmen, the merchants that represented the dawn of The Modern Age.  The final act of the British Civil Wars took place in Appomattox Court House Virginia.  America has moved on.  No longer is half the nation ruled over by aristocratic families set upon White Columned Mansions upon a well-tended lawn, surrounded by monoculture cotton for export.  And no longer are “servants” (southern for “Slaves”) used as beasts of burden and fed and clothed by the products of the plantations themselves.  This medieval landscape had to die before the United States of America could come into its own.  The Confederacy for all its talk of “states rats” was essentially fighting against the triumph of the “bourgeois shopkeepers”.   It was men like Robert E. Lee, and Jefferson Davis who like Napoleon before them scorned the fighting spirit of the crass bourgeois Anglo-Saxon “shop keeps”. In case some have not noticed or have come to regret the fact, the North won.  And the results were not the South and the new west becoming a greater New England but instead an entirely new USA becoming a Continental Constitutional Republic of wealth, and power, on a level unseen in history. The New World, Atlantis perhaps, saved western Europe three times and continues to do so.
It is now no longer feasible to be as supreme as once we were. The inevitable occurred as new continental-sized states were ruthlessly unified by means of the various Isms’ of the Twentieth Century.  Now, there are nations the size and might of which have never been seen stomping over the face of the planet.  The Great Powers we reckoned with as a young nation were France, Britain, Spain, and Germany was not yet even a unified state yet.  The Framers never dreamed that nations with fabulous names from a mythic past, like Persia, India, China, or a backwards Russia would trod the earth like Behemoths. There are Chinese cities whose names we do not even know that have more people than Portugal, or Spain!

Yet, still the Atlantic and Pacific moats protect us.  But we will require the forward offensive Naval and Air Power to project our frontiers to the far side of those oceans. The Constitution requires in Article One, section 8, paragraph 13: “To provide and maintain a Navy”, and if they could envisage such a thing as an Air Navy, the Framers would surely have added that to the paragraph. Constitutional Libertarians need not be non-interventionalist in foreign policy.  The USA has evolved from a small group of semi-autonomous states clinging to the eastern seaboard to a Continental power with interests spanning the globe.  There is no example in history of a major power reaching an apogee and deciding that they shall step back a pace or two so as to “not be over there”.  Nations are like Dylan said about people, only more so, they are either “busy being born or busy dyin'”.  Major nations continue to strive or they begin to collapse.  There is never any middle course.   Maybe, President Paul, will thread that needle.  But, I would not trust his Austrian School fanaticism that sees all international borders as purely “illiberal” and arbitrary lines on a map. They are Constitutionalist (but only maybe, it appears the Articles of Confederation are starting to seem more to their liking!)  yet they do not abide Congress restricting the flow of labor, capital, and goods flowing unimpeded across our borders.  The Constitutional right of Congress “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” though admitted by Dr. Paul, was said by him to be unwise policy.  I disagree.  There are those Austrian Scholars who giggle that we should be grateful to those people who wish to sell us the consumer goods we want for a price lower than American companies could provide.  The Doctor giggles, ‘should we ask them to charge us more?’ Problem is that the cheap imported goods are not so cheap, no, not so cheap at all.  Drive from Green Bay, down the western shore of Lake Michigan, past derelict plants.  Then visit South Chicago, where our current president prepared for the office by organizing the urban street.  Round the bend to Gary, Indiana, proceed through to Detroit, Toledo, Erie, across New York State past Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Utica; one long rusting blight of what was once the source of the might that created the wealth that when needed became the arsenal of democracy.  It lies like a bleeding corpse.  Perhaps a new “Industrial Ruins National Park” will revitalize the region?  This is the cost of ~giggle~ the Chinese not charging us enough for the goods we want.  Libertarianism in international affairs differs from Globalism in what particular manner?  Our Alex Jones’ friends, so vigilantly on guard against The New World Order Globalists, have somehow anointed Dr. Paul.  Yet he would do his best to facilitate freer trade if that were possible.  H would allow the last remnant of industry to be sucked out to China, and he would also reduce the size of our Navy facing this same hyper-industrializing China.

Dr. Paul’s unwavering loyalty to the doctrine of Free Trade is not the typical pragmatic Anglophone Way.  (It is interesting how Anglophobic paranoia fills Alex Jones’ clones; just as it did the isolationists in the early twentieth century.  Anglophobia unites illiberal attacks on the Modern Age both from the right and the left!, but that thought is for another time). Even Jefferson knew that theories must come second to the reality of statecraft.  He went beyond the Congress’ authority to purchase New Orleans and took up Napoleon’s offer for the entire Louisiana Territory. Would an ideologue make that compromise? 
Would Dr. Paul have looked beyond his ideology to base his decision on statesmanship?
As China begins to grow militarily into a potential major challenger to American dominance in the Pacific, the good Doctor prescribes harsh cuts in military spending.  When China pushes past the First Island Chain, if we allow the “Finlandization” of Japan, Taiwan, The Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam, we shall have a new border.  Not only will we be ineffectual at the southern border, with Mexico, we should then have a western border with China in California.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact, Lincoln commented.  Nor is Constitutional Libertarianism a philosophy dependent upon the generosity and peaceful intentions of others.  Radical Austrian Libertarianism would be, it ought to be discarded as just one more Utopian Ism.  Does he suggest private ships with Letters of Marque instead of the US Navy patrol the western Pacific?  Is he crazy?  We can and ought to be libertarian within our borders, but maintain supremacy in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.   And we also need to protect our people from having to compete with coolie labor in a race to the bottom.

Ironically, Hamilton, and Lincoln, now considered fiends by the Lew Rockwell, Ralph Raico, Von Mises intellectuals of the Austrian School are believed to have injected a virus of International (Jewisssh) Bankers into the United States.  Yet, they are the ones who were assassinated!  Imagine the conspiracy theories if Hamilton shot and killed Burr, or Jefferson!  Or if it was Jefferson Davis assassinated instead of Lincoln! Finally, the last straw for me, was the vile Jew hatred spewed last week by former CIA man Scheuer, a standard on Judge Napolitano’s show.  The Judge a Paulist and an Austrian, proved to me how essentially un-American Radical Austrian School Libertarianism is last week.  The vile anti-Semitic comments on the websites of Alex Jones, and on Facebook pages discussing St. Paul shows who these Theories attract.  No, I cannot blame Jones and the Facebook Pagemasters for the comments of their followers.  But, it would be foolish to pretend there is no connection between the Ism of Radical Libertarianism and the vile anti-Zionist, anti-Jew tide of filth.  The psychosis in the US between the Leftists worshippers of Obama, on the one hand and the spitting spew of anti-Jewish hatred on the anti-Globalist side is leaving a narrow almost untenable path.  Glenn Beck seems to be the sole guardian there.  Mark Levin is not a Libertarian, so though a Constitutionalist on many points, he is willing to use the Federal power to fight the drug war.  Forced to choose between the two “opposites” this country is committing suicide.

“From whence shall we expect the approach of danger? Shall some trans-Atlantic military giant step the earth and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia…could not by force take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the Blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years. No, if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men we will live forever or die by suicide.”

Abraham Lincoln


For a Nationalist Constitutionalist Libertarian

My problem with Ron Paul is his libertarian orthodoxy. He admits in “End The Fed” that the Constitution gives the Congress authority to regulate trade with foreign nations. His Austrian School ideology claims Free Trade is the only MORAL policy a free people can accept. (Article One, Section eight.)
A Statesman must not allow idealism to overwhelm the clear national interest. No one has an “Interestometer”, that somehow determines a singular best national policy. A Statesman must have his moral compass, but must also lead by gut too. We are humans and not purely rational un-embodied minds. Jefferson Himself, sainted by Libertarians purchased the entire Louisiana Territory from Napoleon though Congress had authorized him to only negotiate for New Orleans. Would Ron Paul have been statesman or ideologue in this case?
Free Trade is absolutely not a logical necessity of Libertarianism; unless the very concept of a national border itself is considered an infringement and an imposition. In that case, despite being Philosophically opposed, the absolute identical policy would be enacted by The Globalist as by the Libertarian!
Since The Constitution gives the Congress the authority to determine a Trade Policy for the United States, the lack of any meaningful policy, i.e. Free Trade, is in and of itself a policy. The only question is, is it a wise policy, is it good for America?
Ayn Rand would ask “For whom?” “For whom is Policy A beneficial, and to whom is it harmful?” Yes, there are winners and losers in any Trade Policy; but as we just established Free Trade itself is a Trade Policy. Only the Congress having abdicated its Constitutional Role has removed Trade from the proper political consideration it deserves. As the writers of the Federalist Papers hoped, a continental-sized Republic would have so many clashing interests that no one single interest could dictate to the rest. Thus, the nasty appearing sausage machinery of political horse trading allows for the closest approximation to “The Common Interest”. It doesn’t require the presumed clairvoyance of the popular leader who can divine the Common Interest or the technocrat with the non-existent “Interestometer”; it makes no claim to perfection. Humbly, the Framers never strove for Idealistic Perfection. Our Constitution is not for Angels, but for self-interested and rational humans with at least some degree of morality.
Free Trade is pernicious. It virtually allows for Human Sacrifice of entire swathes of the nation; the so-called Rust Belt; in order to support its Ideology; and the multinational corporations. Conservatives recall when companies made things. That was what they defined themselves as: car makers, airplane makers, clothing makers etc. But, with the rise of huge mega-corporations owned by shareholders, the only thing necessarily created is increased worth of the stock. That is the sole fiduciary responsibility of the Board; to maximize the worth of the stock; period. If that requires closing US Factories and either building new ones in Asia, or by entirely leaving the manufacturing business and changing into an import and distribution system; then that is what must be done. MUST, because of Fiduciary Law!
I bet most individual stock holders, and most individual CEO’s hired by the Board would love to maintain the production within the USA, if they could. But since American Law allows it, they must avail themselves of the ability to outsource manufacturing to Asia to either coolie, peon or outright slave labor! Only by making it less profitable by adding import duties to reflect the price that American labor would be paid, and the cost of conforming to American regulatory diktats, can US manufacturing be re-booted.
When smarmy Free Trade advocates ask us why we should be angry at China for providing us with this or that consumer good at a quality and price unmatched by US production, we must point to the Rust Belt, the sky-rocketing unemployment, and underemployment, the rise of a dependent population enthralled to Government for handouts, and thus effectively leashed to Big Government political parties. That is what cheap imports cost!
The so-called High Tech and Service Economy that was going to replace the Industrial heartland has not materialized. The economic system that once allowed an average intelligent, high school graduate who played by the rules a chance to work in industry and afford to pay down a real mortgage on real property to raise a family and save for retirement and his kids’ college has been sacrificed at the alter of Wall Street and Libertarian Orthodoxy.
We need a Constitutional Nationalist; as Pat Buchanan represented. We need to reign in the Globalist/military/ security/ industrial/ pharmaceutical Complex. Ron Paul is only half the answer.
Who will put America ahead of Free Trade Ideology, as well as ahead of Globalist Foreign Policy? Where is the Pat Buchanan conservative constitutionalist to go?

To Newt, and all would be Presidents

Newt, I have always enjoyed listening to your speeches. I heard you on Satellite radio a couple of weeks ago in a rented car.  I do not know what it is you said that set off this sh_t storm.  But if we agree that the Federal Government has no legitimate role in providing health care or insurance then we are on the same page.  But, I am also dead opposed to the Free Trade Orthodoxy that you seem to embrace.

Libertarian Zealots preach that Chinese slave-like labor is good for Americans, it provides us with cheaper products.  Unfortunately these folks are so Libertarian that they believe the very foundation of Governments, i.e. the setting of physical borders between “us” and “them” is illiberal.  But to do otherwise is to force American labor to compete with Chinese or even more exploited labor.  I believe in a Liberty that is within borders.  We would have more liberty if we were to sacrifice some liberty at the border.  To the degree that libertarianism is not anarchy, we accept that there is a basic legitimate power which we have delegated to the government, in order to enjoy the bulk of our liberty in civil society. That minimal evil, Government, is most efficiently used to the public good by keeping most of the illiberality at the outer border.
Like a lever and fulcrum, any given amount of illiberality at the border, will be capable of performing more “work” than when diffused throughout the body politic.  For example, Immigration, is most efficiently stopped at a strong impermeable membrane, at the border.  Past the border, the Government feels it can deputize civilian employers into becoming unpaid Immigration officials.  By avoiding the illiberality at the border, we create the situation where federal agents can casually claim the right to burst in on factories and slaughterhouses and demand ID cards.
WE need to control our borders in a rational way, a way that concentrates as much of the total imposition of the burdens of centripetal force there, rather than spread though the entire society.  Drugs, legalized, or stopped.  If we cannot do the former, then we do the latter.  But, it is the insufficient attempt at controlling the border that empowers the now tyrannical War On Liberty in the name of War on Drugs!  Between illegal immigration and illegal drug importation it is as if someone were deliberately constructing the raison d’être to impose internal dictatorship.  The border must not be seen as a passive line in the dirt.  Like a cell membrane, it is the site of a host of complex actions and reactions.
For the greater part of American history, one of the greatest recurring political debates in the Congress was on Trade Policy.  It was expected that the myriad of special interests jostling one another would result in compromises and something most similar to “common interest” was discovered.  There was a natural humility that no one claimed to know the Common Good!  That has disappeared with the self-anointing of economists and other Specialists who believe they are gifted to know the Common Good, as they peer from their lofty height.  Free Trade, is a trade policy.  It ought not, and never had been a moral claim.  It is one of an infinite number of trade policies that a sovereign nation may enact at its borders.  The United States grew into the mightiest industrial economy in the history of the world behind stout Tariffs.  In the post WW2 years there were indeed national interests that were furthered by a policy choice of Free Trade.  In the aftermath of the war, the world lay smoldering except the USA.  By opening our markets to the world, we were able to reap the benefits due a conquering nation, i.e. the importation of what once would have been unaffordable.  It also served our Foreign Policy by kick staring Western Europe and Japan’s economies.  The re-establishment of a middle class was rightly seen as the most important factor in the containment of Communism.  Allowing access to our economy, the only truly functional economy in the post war years was a means of nudging the nations of the world to implement policies in favor of the USA.  Such supreme power was a once -in-world history phenomenon.  It is unimaginable to picture what a victory by the Axis powers would have looked like.  I believe it would have been very bleak indeed for a world exploited by NAZIs and Samurai!  But, that was an exceptional period of history.  That moment has passed; perhaps at the time of the downfall of the USSR.  But be that as it may, it passed.  Free Trade is n o longer in our Best Interests.  It is hollowing out our economy.  It is moving us into a post-industrial world.  The so-called service and intelligence processing industries have not risen to replace the high wages of the auto manufacturing industrial middle class whose grandchildren are left adrift at the high water mark of the Midwest and Great Lakes rustbelts.
We need to regain control of our border and make it work for us.  The right to export into the United States ought to be considered a fantastic boon, and not a bowl of beans!  How do we dare allow our corporations to produce everything overseas with cheap hazardous labor, in factories belching out toxic waste that dwarfs anything produced in the peak of our industrial age, to freely import their products back here?  No!
We would solve virtually every one of our major problems by returning the creation of Trade Policy to the realm of politics where it belongs, and out of the realm of Political Philosophy where it now resides.  We need to re-assert the right, the obligation, of Congress to legislate Trade Policy based upon self-interests jostling against one another.  This will be the closest approximation to The Common Good that flawed human being can achieve.
Newt, if these border issues are not addressed, the presidential campaign in 2012 will sadly be about selecting the last president of the United States of America.

Free Trade: A MALIGNANT IDEOLOGY

Free Trade is a malignant ideology. It is designed to destroy the American Middle Class. “They” the anti-capitalist, anti-liberty conservatives (in the true sense) have never conceded the point that the nobility and priesthood have been excluded from the modern world of which America was the nucleus. American History I believe should be taught as beginning in the English Civil Wars. At the heart of that war was the battle between the Landed Aristocracy/the Monarchy/the Established Church/the superstitious and manipulated peasantry, on the one hand, and the craftsmen, tradesmen, merchants of the towns, with their anti-Episcopal Churches and reformed Protestant theology, on the other.

Eventually after one king was executed and a brief period of “commonwealth” dictatorship under Cromwell ended with the threat of the return of the Stewart dynasty, the British were tired of war and invited Prince William of Orange (Netherlands) and his English wife, Mary to reign. While Britain was distracted by this chaotic period, the American Colonies were free to establish the first polities created rationally by enlightened Protestant middle class, for the middle class. When Britain later tried to bring the “upstarts” to heel they lost. But “nouveau riche” upstarts is how the Nobility and Warrior Class saw the Middle Classes. And the peasants and proletariat were used and manipulated by the Princes and Priests and their Pomp and Pageantry and taught to envy the Middle Class “upstarts” who “thought they were better than” them. Thus Napoleon and Hitler dismissed the Anglo-American commercial empires as nations of mere “shopkeepers”. BUT the EuroTrash has never really despaired of putting us back in our place!

Free Trade is their method, now. Through out-sourcing jobs that allowed a man to support his family in Middle Class comfort, we have been weakened. By allowing the re-import of the products that were out-sourced without having to pay a Tariff allows for maximum profit for the Upper Class, some of which they use to support “liberal” groups that keep the lower classes at odds with the Middle Class.

America has been unique in several ways. But one way has been in its unique history of having a consciously designed political system based upon the ideas that existed in Europe during the brief window between John Locke and the French Revolution. That window slammed shut like a guillotine, cutting American middle class Liberty off from Continental EuroTrash ideology of “Left and Right”.

WE NEED A TRADE POLICY THAT VALUES ACCESS TO THE AMERICAN MARKET AS THE GREAT BOON IT IS. The World has grown accustomed to its belief that America’s markets are freely open to all. This has led to the deliberate destruction of the Middle Class. It is the happy Middle Class that has given the lie to Marxist Utopian theology. Thus the Middle Class MUST be destroyed. And as Britain was the bulwark for Protestantism against the Catholic Habsburgs and Bourbons, America played that role against the Communists and Fascists. Free Trade must end as an ideological “good”. Sometimes perhaps Free Trade is in our interests and at other times protectionism better serves. In every debate over Trade Policy there will be interested parties that stand to gain or lose, based upon changing Trade. Political debate in Congress had been the method of bringing to bear the closest approximation of the best trade policy at any given time. These debates are between what have been derided as “special interests”. When I hear politicians using the phrase “Common Good”, like Ayn Rand I ask “for whom?” There is NO such thing as “The Common Good”, just as there is no such thing as “The Economy”. “The Economy” has no independent reality. It merely is the sum total of rational beings exchanging goods and services to advance their own perceived ideas of where their best interest lies.

SIX POINTS for the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: to restore the Morality, Wealth, Authority, Power and Honor of America

This House of Representatives must do the things within its power to do, this year.  Here are six  straight forward points to stick to.

1. Defund the EPA or limit its authority to declare arbitrarily whether a chemical is a pollutant.  The term pollutant must be excruciatingly defined or they will be naming Libertarians as toxins.  A pollutant is a byproduct of an industrial, chemical, or other human initiated process that causes significant and direct and measurable risk of a recognizable injury or illness, to humans whether in the womb or not.  In addition, a Pollutant may be a substance that damages significantly a limited natural resource.  The EPA shall make recommendations to The Congress of The United States only.  Climatic speculation is explicitly removed from the agency.

Like the schoolmarm would say: if you cannot behave yourselves voluntarily we will be forced to have stricter rules.  Unfortunately the Agencies have reversed roles with us! We are  their employers!

2.Defund the FCC and/or limit its authority to the limited resource of radio bandwidth rationing.  The FCC must be the auctioneer and referee of the limited radio spectrum. Only!  The only public benefit mandated for the FCC is to maximize the fees collected to lease the right to band width.  Since bandwidth is pre-existent to radio, and is a natural resource, the government’s only role is to see to its maximal profitability.  People vote with their dials, and the free market is the only neutral indicator of “public benefit”.  The FCC shall not have an opinion upon the content broadcast upon the band width that it leases, except for limitations on foul language.  If we need to return to a childish list of words and refer to them by their first letters, so-be-it.  The FCC has no mandate to “improve” or change the public’s thinking on any issue or point of contention.

Unlike the radio band, the Internet is not a natural resource.  There is no intrinsic scarcity requiring rationing of any kind.  It is Private Property.  Can’t you read the sign?  No Trespassing!  MYOB.

3. Defund the FDA and/or limit its jurisdiction to foods and drugs sold across state lines.  The Constitution grants the Federal Government no authority to intrude on this matter within the individual states.  If need be, we can produce a tedious list of items to be considered Food or Drugs.

The FDA should be liable in regard to the importation of any food or drug from a foreign country that is mislabeled, or unhealthy.  Keep out of our local business and protect the nation as a whole.

4. Defund the NEA.  Again, as the schoolmarm might say, “Alright Children, since we can’t all agree on what art is, we shall have no publicly subsidized art.”  Ralph Kramden and Ed Norton need not pay taxes for Crucifixes covered with Cockroaches, urine, or anything else.

5. Defund and eliminate DHS!!!  This is nothing if it is not the civilian defense force of which Obama spoke, equally well funded and equally prepared as the Pentagon.

It is an American Stasi, KGB and Gestapo, with technology Orwell never imagined in his worst nightmare!  It has nothing to do with fighting Terrorists and protecting Americans.  It is the boot designed to smash the Human Spirit forever and ever.  It is the arm of the New World Order designed to take America, the mightiest and wealthiest nation in human history, and weaponize it; use up its wealth in creating the instrument of its own enslavement and the enslavement of the entire world.  A thorough Congressional investigation into Chertoff’s connection with the Body Scanners acquisition, and a public airing of the records of the TSA and DHS will remove the stench of this un-American Junta.

6. Audit the Federal Reserve.  Investigate the history of the formation, the goals, and the actions of the Fed for its entire century of operation.  Let us know exactly which companies and individuals received any of the bail-out funds, and why.

These six things are doable and would restore the United States to our previous heights of power, wealth and respect.

Middle Class: The Exceptional Flash-In-The-Pan

I do not know who it was that conflated the history of European oppression over Native-Americans into this discussion, but it is off point.  Oppression can only be recognized in a Civilization that has notions of Liberty.  From the Incas, to the Maya, the Aztec, the Mississippian Mound Builders, all were based upon Tribalism and Force.  Same for all of the Civilizations of ancient Mesopotamia.  Tribalism and Force.  Greek City-States were based on power and tyranny or power and democracy (in its cannibalistic sense).  The Greeks however did produce the first political philosophers; though their ideas were never given a chance to take root.  More war and tribalism destroyed the Greeks.  And made way for Alexander.  And there was a brief flicker of enlightenment, but Aristotle’s philosophy did not stand up to Alexander’s great Thirst for wine women and that gold-standard of tribalistic thought: Glory!  And then Rome.  The Republic, looked to the Philosophy of the Greeks.  The ancient perpetual antagonism between oppressed and oppressor was channeled into political rather than military striving.  But, the Light of The Republic flickered only long enough to produce a civilizational memory of the concept of political Liberty.  And again the Glorious Generals resumed their sway.  The Empire gradually diminished and even its tyranny was remembered fondly in the dark ages that followed the onslaught of the Germanic, Hunnic and finally Mongolian Tribes.  All the time, it was Might Makes Right.  Even into Medieval Europe, it was the descendents of the most recent successful Tribal foray that became the so-called nobility, who ruled over the native-born toilers of the soil. Human History forever has been Swordsman, Horsemen, Pikemen, Musketeers, fighting for GLORIOUS Nobles.  The peasants saw only the change in fashions of dress and language as one ruling class was replaced by the next.  But, miraculously as technology crossed some threshold, and there was a food surplus (as a result of the Black Death), there developed a niche of specialists.  They learned new trades and produced things that the Nobility wanted.  Learning that a looted tradesman will probably no longer produce the goods desired, the Nobility had to recognize that here was a person who was not Clergy, nor Nobility, and yet not peasant either.  These craftsmen and women, and merchants became wealthy.  Their wealth was required by the Nobles to wage their Glorious Wars.  And again they learned that you can loot the Townsman once, but then he will either leave, or revert to farming.  And the Towns and Cities demanded licenses, or privileges (private law) that formalized the inhabitants newly recognized middle class.  These Towns (or Burgs) were filled with Burgers or Bourgeoisie.  The Bourgeois continued to produce more wealth than they needed and thus accumulated capital.  Finally a force evolved that stood a chance against the men on Horseback.  With Capital came power.  It took various true revolutions most classically the British Civil Wars to once and for all force the Nobles to accept the Legal Equality of the Middle Class.  This phenomenon in terms of world history and geography is like a flash bulb going off in a black empty arena.  The Middle Class has been despised by Nobility and “Old Money” ever since its foundation.  All of the nations of Europe arose in misty mythic ages where Glorious Monuments to Church And Princes still are seen everywhere.

But America, was new.  Here, there never were nobles.  Never were peasants tied to the land.   (Except the Slaves of course.  And that required the final revolution of Capitalism against Aristocracy, The American Civil War.)  America was founded by Pilgrims fleeing the High Church of the Aristocracy.  Yes, as the British Civil wars ran their course, when aristocrats were down they also came here, to Tidewater lands in the South.  But, that is why the US Civil War is the last act of the British Civil Wars, (see The Cousin’s Wars).  America is the exceptional nation.  Here we had no traditions that drifted back into some mythic past.  When America became Independent from Europe they never quite forgave us our uppityness.  Yet, just as on the microcosm the individual Earls and Dukes came to the merchants and capitalists for cash to throw their gala wars, so too did the European Nation-States come to the USA to fund their “Proud Military Tradition”.  They needed the wealth produced by the combination of Liberty, the Natural Resources of the Land to which the God whose hand is seen in History lead us to, and the ethic derived from pragmatic enlightened Reformed Protestantism.    They needed it but hated having to come to us for it.    And now, all the enemies, all the jealous Knights and the hordes of peasants they entice with myths of glory are circling.  America is Gulliver, and the Lilliputian ropes individually laughable are bound in fascicles and are slowly harnessing us again.  Once again America, and The Middle Class will be taught their place!  And the very brief flash will flare out, and the darkness will  seem much more dark than it had been before.  All of the technological advances produced by America and the Liberal World of which it was the Champion will be weaponized and turned upon us.  And The World can resume its Quest For Glory, For Counting Coup, For Collecting Scalps and Ears and Shrunken heads.   Please, the Indians were just as beholden to Might makes Right and the Ideals of Honor and Glory as the monocled and scar-faced Prussian Junker.  They merely lacked the technology to produce mustard gas and barbed wire and machine guns!