Curious Reversals

Even though the budget crisis has not been solved, and it appears that the national debt may be poised to grow to 200% of GDP in a few years, the elected officials in Washington DC have decided that it is far more important right now to deal with the problem of undocumented immigration from Mexico. Perhaps they feel they have time to deal with this, because working on actually fixing the budget was only postponed by a few months.

The mainstream punditry are discussing how the Republican Party appears to be trying to reach out to Latino voters by being willing to make deals on amnesty and other immigration related topics. Of course the analysis discusses how Republicans have a difficult time reaching out to minorities. Several months prior, when George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin, Latinos or Hispanics were not considered to be minorities but were considered to be white.

But the more curious aspect of immigration reform is how the Democratic Party, generally perceived as the racially sensitive party and contrasted with the Republican Party, is the party more favored by the Latino vote. Yet under President Barack Obama, deportations of illegal immigrants have proceeded at a far higher pace than under President George Bush.

Likewise, the Democratic Party is the party with a reputation for being generally opposed to aggressive warfare, which seems to make Democratic Party politicians more eager to prove themselves through militancy, and because of their reputation they do not have to worry about attracting blame for the wars they wage.

The Republican Party has a severely undeserved reputation for limited government. That is why there is far less of a reaction when Republican Party politicians create agencies such as the TSA or the DHS, pass legislation such as the USAPATRIOT Act, No Child Left Behind, or Prescription Drug Coverage for Seniors, or enact abuses such as Telecom Immunity.

The Republican Party also has a reputation for being fiscal hawks. While both parties are profligate spenders, at least the Democrats try to enact some minor token tax increases to address their proposed spending. The so-called fiscal hawks are regular advocates of deficit spending, which is why although the Democrats are very likely to maintain any rate of spending started by Republicans, it is the Republicans who accelerate spending.

On issue after issue, it comes up over and over again that what one party has a reputation for advocating, the other party is the actual advocate. It is bad enough that there is no genuine choice between the two wings of the one party, but the choice is made even more obscure by each party representing the opposite of what it stands for on the few issues that divide them.

Near-miss Libertarian

Although the world is full of unpleasant examples of socialism, apparently not a single country that embraced central planning has ever counted as an example in any discussion of the subject. In each and every case the country in question wasn’t “real” socialism. It is a giant international game of "No True Scotsman" with regards to socialism. Every country in the Warsaw Pact, as well as China, Cuba, and North Korea are not examples of real socialism.

It may be necessary to deny all the examples of the failures of central planning are examples of socialism. After all, if one were to admit them as evidence, it would be necessary to conclude that socialism as an economic system does not work.

This stands in stark contrast to classical liberalism, where imperfect examples are embraced, with the caveat that they are imperfect examples and there are aspects of those examples that are illibertarian.

One of the first examples is the United States, usually prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve but often prior to the New Deal. Libertarians will grant that the setup had the flaws, most notably slavery. Other examples include many other western countries during the time between the final defeat of Napoleon and the outbreak of World War One, in spite of their colonialism. Or further back in history, there is Medieval Iceland, which lasted three hundred hears before becoming a territory of Norway.

Although each example had flaws, libertarians embrace them as examples because they show that the closer a country has gotten to the classic liberal ideal the better off that country has been.

Statists have counter-arguments to the trend the examples show. The first counter-argument is The Temporal Fallacy wherein they argue that, due to technological advancements since then, that today’s situation is clearly better in every respect. The truth is that technologically today’s situation is improved, and the rest does not follow.

A second argument is to deliberately confuse the flaw with the example. If a libertarians says "although this example had the glaring flaw of slavery…" the statist will respond as if the libertarian had said “this example has the virtue of slavery” and accuse the libertarian of being a defender of the flaw instead of condemning the flaw. The statist will then feel free to ignore the point of the example.

Either of those arguments is easily countered. The principle stands as a shining one – the closer a country has gotten to liberty the better off that country has been. This includes many countries that count as examples, and even a few that are decidedly not libertarian countries but have become more free in various areas, such as when communist China decontrolled various parts of the economy creating an economic powerhouse. The principle is clear to anyone willing to see.