Friday, June 2, 2017

Reading List – Populism, et al



Reading List – Populism, et al

I’ve been attempting to get a grip on where our society stands in light of the recent trends both in the U.S. and Europe toward populism, and away from identity politics.  Some reading that I’ve done recently in this vein is as follows with review references.

A consistent trend in society over the past 50 years has been the cult of “me”, the rush toward secularism and the move away from traditional values.  This has been exacerbated by the information revolution of the last 30 odd years.


FINISHED









FUTURE READING



“American Covenant: A History of Civil Religion from the Puritans to the Present”, Philip Gorski  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/21/opinion/the-unifying-american-story.html

“Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right”, Arlie Russell Hochschild  https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/books/review/strangers-in-their-own-land-arlie-russell-hochschild.html?_r=0

“The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life”, Richard J. Herrnstein, Charles Murray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve





American Conservatism and Liberalism



American Conservatism and Liberalism
Modern American Conservatism is a broad system of political beliefs in the United States that is characterized by respect for American traditions, support for Judeo-Christian values, economic liberalism, anti-communism, advocacy of American exceptionalism, and a defense of Western culture from threats posed by "creeping socialism", moral relativism, multiculturalism and liberal internationalism. Liberty is a core value, with a particular emphasis on strengthening the free market, limiting the size and scope of government, and opposition to high taxes and government or labor union encroachment on the entrepreneur. American conservatives consider individual liberty, within the bounds of conformity to American values, as the fundamental trait of democracy, which contrasts with modern American liberals, who generally place a greater value on equality and social justice.[1][2]
American conservatism originated from classical liberalism of 18th and 19th centuries, which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedom.[3][4]
Historians argue that the conservative tradition has played a major role in American politics and culture since the 1790s. However they have stressed that an organized conservative movement has played a key role in politics only since the 1950s.[5][6][7] The recent movement is based in the Republican Party, though some Democrats were also important figures early in the movement's history
Conservatives generally believe that government action is not the solution to such problems as poverty and inequality. Many believe that government programs that seek to provide services and opportunities for the poor actually encourage dependence and reduce self-reliance. Most conservatives oppose affirmative action policies, that is, policies in employment, education, and other areas that give special advantages to people who belong to groups that have been historically discriminated against. Conservatives believe that the government should not give special benefits to people on the basis of group identity and oppose it as "reverse discrimination".
Conservatives typically hold that the government should play a smaller role in regulating business and managing the economy. They typically oppose high tax rates and programs to redistribute income to assist the poor. Such efforts, they argue, do not properly reward people who have earned their money through hard work. However, conservatives usually place a strong emphasis on the role of private voluntary charitable organizations (especially faith-based charities) in helping the poor.
As conservatives value order and security, they favor a small but strong government role in law enforcement and national defense.


Modern American liberalism is the dominant version of liberalism in the United States. It is characterized by social liberalism,[1] and combines ideas of civil liberty and equality with support for social justice and a mixed economy.[1] The term "modern liberalism" in this article refers only to the United States. In a global context, this philosophy is usually referred to as social liberalism.
The American modern liberal philosophy strongly endorses public spending on programs such as education, health care, and welfare. Important social issues today include addressing inequality, voting rights for minorities, affirmative action, reproductive and other women's rights, support for LGBT rights, and immigration reform.[2]
Modern liberalism took shape during the twentieth century, with roots in Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom, Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, Harry S. Truman's Fair Deal, John F. Kennedy's New Frontier, and Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society. American liberals oppose conservatives on most issues, but not all. Modern liberalism is historically related to social liberalism and progressivism, though the current relationship between liberal and progressive viewpoints is debated.
The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property, while adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract.
Also the philosophies of Hegel, Rousseau. Nietzsche, Heidegger, and the politics of Robespierre, von Bismarck, Mussolini, Lenin and others
Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1941 defined a liberal party as one,
"which believes that, as new conditions and problems arise beyond the power of men and women to meet as individuals, it becomes the duty of Government itself to find new remedies with which to meet them. The liberal party insists that the Government has the definite duty to use all its power and resources to meet new social problems with new social controls—to ensure to the average person the right to his own economic and political life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."[11]
Keynesian economic theory has played an important role in the economic philosophy of modern American liberals.[12] Modern American liberals generally believe that national prosperity requires government management of the macroeconomy, in order to keep unemployment low, inflation in check, and growth high.[12] They also value institutions that defend against economic inequality. In The Conscience of a Liberal Paul Krugman writes: "I believe in a relatively equal society, supported by institutions that limit extremes of wealth and poverty. I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I'm proud of it."[13] Liberals often point to the widespread prosperity enjoyed under a mixed economy in the years since World War II.[14][15] They believe liberty exists when access to necessities like health care and economic opportunity are available to all,[16] and they champion the protection of the environment.[17][18]
Modern American liberalism is typically associated with the Democratic Party, as modern American conservatism is typically associated with the Republican Party.[19]

Herbert David Croly (January 23, 1869 – May 17, 1930) was an intellectual leader of the progressive movement as an editor, political philosopher and a co-founder of the magazine The New Republic in early twentieth-century America. His political philosophy influenced many leading progressives.
Croly was one of the founders of modern liberalism in the United States, especially through his books, essays, and a highly influential magazine founded in 1914, The New Republic. In his 1914 book Progressive Democracy, Croly rejected the thesis that the liberal tradition in the United States was inhospitable to anti-capitalist alternatives. He drew from the American past a history of resistance to capitalist wage relations that was fundamentally liberal, and he reclaimed an idea that Progressives had allowed to lapse - that working for wages was a lesser form of liberty. Increasingly skeptical of the capacity of social welfare legislation to remedy social ills, Croly argued that America's liberal promise could be redeemed only by syndicalist reforms involving workplace democracy.

Liberalism and Radicalism both reject the wisdom of the past, as enshrined in the institutions of the past, or in the morality of the past. They deny the legitimacy to laws, governments, or ways of life which accept the ancient evils of mankind, such as poverty, inequality, and war, as necessary—and therefore as permanent—attributes of the human condition. Political excellence can no longer be measured by the degree to which it ameliorates such evils. The only acceptable goal is their abolition. Liberalism and Radicalism look forward to a state of things in which the means of life, and of the good life, are available to all. They must be available in such a way that the full development of each individual—which is how the good life is defined—is not merely compatible with, but necessary to, the full development of all. Competition between individuals, classes, races, and nations must come to an end. Competition itself is seen as the root of the evils mankind must escape. The good society must be characterized only by cooperation and harmony.





Executive Orders on Alien Restrictions



Executive Orders on Alien Restrictions

I’ve not been a big supporter of either EO-1 or EO-2 concerning restricted entry to the U.S. of aliens of certain countries.  EO-1 was admittedly ill-conceived even by Trump’s minions.  EO-2 was more legalistically robust and established the principle that the executive branch had the constitutional right to exclude aliens from this country that they considered terrorists, or dangerous or inimical to the country.

The countries involved in EO-2 are Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Iran, Libya, and Sudan. Practically speaking, there were no deaths resulting from terrorist activities by citizens of the six countries involved, and only 28 peripheral , non U.S. terrorist related activities since 9/11.  The above does not include the recent Manchester, England suicide bomber with ties to Libya who killed 22 and injured 120, mostly young girls.  This has introduced an emotional component into the mix, but does not alter the main points questioning the efficacy of EO-2 on statistical and pragmatic grounds.

Notwithstanding the efficacy, the Fourth Circuit Court immediately negated EO-2 based on their interpretation of Trump’s anecdotal statements during his candidacy, and the full Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the action, 10 democrats to 3 republicans, illustrating the political nature of the decision. 

The Congress has given the president of the United States “very broad discretion” when it comes to immigration.  Section 212(f) of the immigration law, states: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate." 

So the question is: Can the federal circuit courts, particularly the fourth and ninth circuits, legislate and interpret from the bench in spite of existing law and precedents, based on anecdotal and non-legal pronouncements, and based on the politics of the judges?  Or will constitutional and congressional law pertain?  SCOTUS may or may not hear this issue, and not until October, 2017 unless it gets accelerated.  The issue has gone way past the efficacy and practicality of EO-2.  It has now become the delineation powers among the three branches of government.


Ray Gruszecki
June 2, 2017