"Even" Libertarians?

Dennis Sevakis just sent me an article that discusses the tea party phenomenon and coming problems for the Democratic Party because of the left-wing extremism of many of its leaders. The article begins:

"The battle for the future of America is in the Republican Party. Conservatives, tea party patriots, taxpayer activists, even free market libertarians need to join the fight over whether we will have a Reagan Republican party, or a McCain Democrat party, or a dysfunctional party whose vote is hopelessly split by third party spoilers. The threat to our country is now more serious than ever. If we don't figure this out, we will lose our country, and the world will enter the New Dark Ages." (emphasis added)

Dennis misconstrues the nature of conservatism. I do not blame him because popular discussion about American ideology is almost universally confused and a-historical. There is no such thing as an American conservatism, with apologies to the late William F. Buckley. The notion that Edmund Burke proposed of retaining institutions that slowly evolve is inapplicable to America, as are the terms "left" and "right".

Burke wrote in a Europe that until the late fifth century had been Roman. Thereafter, barbarian tribes, including the Angles, conquered western Europe, but eastern Rome continued on until the 1400s. Barbarian institutions that in some ways continued Roman customs and in others represented radical breaks were put in place in western Europe. This facilitated experimentation and economic development throughout the so-called "dark ages". By the 1400s major advances in agriculture and technology had been made because of the experimentation. Notice that advances occurred in the place where there was the most decentralization, not where traditions were retained in the east or in China or Arabia, all three of which were more advanced than western Europe until the 1500s.

Burke wrote at a time when the institutions that had descended from barbaric conquest had been gradually centralized and various intellectuals had argued for rationalization of control. The Church of England, for example, had evolved from incursions on the Catholic Church, such as seizure of their land, as well as oppression of Protestant sects, many of whose practitioners fled to North America. There was a European debate between (a) radicals who did not want to preserve monarchy, the established church and aristocracy but instead rationally design new forms of state control (the left), and (b) those who wanted to retain the older forms of institutionalized state control (the right). Since there has never been an established national American church (there were regional or state-based churches but they were in conflict with each other and could not have amounted to a national church); a legally imposed aristocracy; nor an established monarchy here there cannot be a "right" and there cannot be an American "conservatism". America has rejected state control of the kinds advocated by both left and right in Europe, at least until the late nineteenth century. The terms left, right and conservative are inapplicable here. Their use is an ideological sleight of hand by advocates of state control, who pretend to have a "progressive"/"conservative" debate.

When the Protestants came here, in both Massachusetts and Virginia, they had been told to adopt the common field communist system that had evolved before and after the barbarian seizure of Roman manors. The colonists tried the notion of common ownership and learned that communism does not work and leads to starvation. Hence, they established property rights on Lockean grounds and broke with their European past. The presence of abundant free land here meant that differences of religious doctrine, such as occurred in Massachusetts when Roger Williams left Boston and founded Rhode Island, could be settled by westward expansion. There was evolution, of course, but there were frequent breaks, new establishments and radical departures throughout the colonial period.

The American experience continued the gradual decentralization and experimentation of post-Roman barbaric Europe. Socialism is an attempt to re-institute a common culture and regulation of the resulting diversity, i.e., to re-institute Roman centralization on barbarian diversity and decentralization. Socialism can take many forms. One is to select institutional characteristics prevalent in past years, say that all people should be compelled to adopt them, and then call yourself a conservative. In the American case this often has the characteristics of a fictionalized past along the lines of Washington Irving's History of New-York from the Beginning of the World to the End of the Dutch Dynasty, by Diedrich Knickerbocker. Irving created a fictionalized author and wrote a fictionalized history of Dutch New York. Similarly, "conservatives" frequently create a fictionalized past in their minds and argue that the fictionalized past should be reimposed. This is virtually the same thing as socialism, which involves invention of some new set of institutions, saying that all people should be compelled to adopt them, and then calling yourself a "progressive". Conservatism and progressivism are the same thing, especially given that most conservatives lack historical knowledge and so lack a clue as to what they think they are conserving. Both viewpoints are violent and suppressive, and both involve variants of "socialism in one country" or "national socialism" as John Lukacs points out.

Both conservatism and socialism had their birth in America in the late nineteenth century in response to the growth of big business. Before that, all Americans were libertarians. Some were less libertarian and more in favor of big government, and these were viewed as conservatives. Others were more libertarian and more in favor of small government, and these were viewed as radicals like Sam Adams. Almost all Americans agreed in (a) free markets; (b) the right to bear arms; and (c) fundamental personal freedom such as the right to property. There was disagreement about central banking, mostly until the 1830s and in the 1880s and later.

The birth of conservatism occurred at the same time as the birth of socialism. Both conservatism and left-wing socialism are invented reactions to big business. Big business posed new questions. In response to it, some advocated laissez-faire, and until the late nineteenth century this was the mainstream viewpoint. Some, like Edward Bellamy in "Looking Backward" advocated socialism. And some, like Theodore Roosevelt, argued for big government intervention in the economy to manage corporations in the corporations' and supposedly the public interest.

The "conservatism" of Roosevelt was a response to socialism and was largely socialistic in strategy and concept. Someone like Robert M. La Follette, Sr., Senator from Wisconsin, Woodrow Wilson and Ida Tarbell, muckraking author of History of the Standard Oil Company were called "progressives" but were basic libertarians who fell into the "progressive" camp because they were confused and awed by the growth of big business. When Progressivism fulfilled its socialistic premise and became the "new deal", (most of Franklin Roosevelt's policies had been advocated by Theodore Roosevelt) many of these people who were still alive, like Tarbell, pulled back from the socialist movement that came to dominate the Democratic Party. Thus, the distinction between conservatives and socialists. Conservatives are either pro-business socialists, like Theodore Roosevelt, the American Enterprise Institute, Wall Street Republicans and Nelson Rockefeller, or they are confused libertarians.

There is no American conservatism because American institutions are rooted in flexibility and change (before the meaning of the word change was corrupted by Barack Obama). To be conservative is to argue for flexibility and change. But the two concepts are contradictory.

Thus, when someone calling themselves conservative uses an adjective like "even" with respect to libertarians when discussing a future American conservativism, I must conclude that he either is ignorant and confused or a socialist.

An Open Letter to John McCain, Requesting His Resignation

Dear Senator McCain:

I donated $500 to your presidential campaign. I now ask you to resign from political life. Your support for the fraudulent "bail out" of Wall Street, insurance companies and commercial banks weeks before last November's election demonstrated incompetence. Common sense ought to have told you that a former Goldman Sachs employee, Henry Paulson, was not an impartial referee who had any interest in taking the side of the American people. Nor does the Federal Reserve Bank. Americans once understood that central banking is inherently corrupt. You seem to have failed to read the lessons of Jefferson and Jackson, relying instead on incompetent university economists on Wall Street's payroll.

For too long corrupt special interests have increasingly manipulated the American economy. The "bail out", which you supported weeks before your presidential election, was the most extreme pandering to corrupt interests in the nation's history. I do not consider you to be an unethical man. Your war record is magnificent and you have done extraordinary service to the nation. However, you have lost your mind or lack the judgment to play a leadership role in the Republican Party.

We moderates want to reduce the scope of government. Only extremists such as yourself can look at a 50% tax burden on the American middle class and see the current situation as "mainstream" or "moderate". When a corrupt, incompetent government, such as exists in Washington, the states and localities today, forces the mainstream of American taxpayers via threat of violence to give up 50% of their income in order to subsidize one scam after another, culminating in hundreds of billions of dollars of handouts to inept financiers who are already on the dole every year via the Federal Reserve Bank, I must conclude that the government is insane. Not just extreme, insane. Since you have supported these insane, extremist policies, I urge you to resign from office in the national interest.

Sincerely,



Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.

Current Projects

The National Association of Scholars called this morning and asked me to blog on their new Wordpress blog. The NAS is an organization for conservative academics. I will start blogging there. I also blog for the Republican Liberty Caucus and have been writing a column for the AI-CPA Career Insider newsletter.

Moreover, I had lunch with Robin Vaccai Yess on Saturday. Robin is the executive director of the Ulster County Republican Committee. Robin asked me to put together an e-mail newsletter for the Ulster County Republicans and I will be working on that.

I am currently finishing a paper on the tenure of university presidents. Marc Fox and I have been working on a paper on university presidents' salaries that is nearly done. I also have some additional research projects, including a book, to get cracking on.

So my plate is full.

Pondering the Imponderable

Robin Vaccai Yess's and my Op Ed "Pondering the Imponderable: Salaries of Ulster County Town Supervisors" appeared yesterday (Sunday, October 4) in the Times Herald Record:

By Robin Vaccai Yess and Mitchell Langbert
Posted: October 04, 2009 - 2:00 AM

Almost a year ago, the Times Herald-Record concluded that there is no rhyme or reason as to why certain town supervisors in the region earn more and other town supervisors earn less. In Ulster County we have uncovered a reason: Part-time town supervisors earn less than full-time. This seems like restating the obvious, but it isn't.

Why some town supervisors are part-time and others are full-time remains a mystery of imponderable proportions. Taxpayers might expect that part-time town supervisors are in smaller towns and full-time supervisors are in larger ones. But that is not so. Whether a town supervisor is full-time or part-time is the single most important determinant of Ulster County supervisors' paychecks. But part-time and full-time status is not significantly related to factors like numbers of town employees and town budgets.

There is no statistical difference in town budgets, household income or numbers of employees in towns with part-time versus full-time supervisors. But in Ulster County, in towns with part-time supervisors, supervisors earn an average of $24,775 in salary. In towns with full-time supervisors they earn $36,876. Budgets, numbers of employees and household income are all higher in towns with full-time supervisors, but at less than the margin of statistical error. Only the difference in salary is greater than the margin of error.

We obtained data on the salaries of Ulster County town supervisors as of Jan. 14 by sending Freedom of Information Act requests to all of the towns in Ulster County. The highest paid Ulster County supervisor is in the Town of New Paltz ($47,870). The lowest paid is in the Town of Kingston ($10,920).

Town supervisors' salaries do correlate with town budgets and populations. But we tested whether budgets and town populations are more important than part-time versus full-time status with a statistical model where part-time status serves as a control. We found that holding part-time/full-time status constant, population, budgets and household income do not have an effect on town supervisors' salaries in Ulster County. Only part-time versus full-time status matters significantly. Our model explains 58 percent of the variability in town supervisors' salaries but the only variable that matters is part-time versus full-time status.

Whereas Olive had a budget of $2.8 million and a population of 4,579 and Ulster had a budget of $14.0 million and a population of 12,550, Olive paid its supervisor $46,350 while Ulster paid its supervisor $45,000.

Almost as imponderable is the amount of health insurance that the towns provide their supervisors. The Town of Kingston does not offer health insurance coverage, while eight other Ulster County towns provide 100 percent of health insurance coverage. In between, five towns provide 82 to 85 percent of health insurance coverage.

We checked whether there are differences among the towns that pay 100 percent of coverage and those that do not. There are no differences in budgets, household income or the number of town employees between towns that cover 100 percent of health insurance and those that do not. However, there is a weak difference in salaries between towns that cover 100 percent of health insurance and those that do not.

We also looked at whether full-timers are more likely to have 100 percent health insurance coverage than part-timers. Half of the part-time town supervisors and 63 percent of the full-time town supervisors get 100 percent medical coverage. The difference is less than the statistical margin of error.

Town supervisors' salaries are likely to be of interest to voters during the coming election year. Many area residents are out of work, and many will have trouble footing their property tax bills. Yet, it will be difficult to get a logical answer as to why some town supervisors are paid more and others are paid less. Voters in districts with full-time town supervisors might ask why they need a full-time supervisor while other towns, equal in size, population and household income, do not need one.

Robin Vaccai Yess is a self-employed certified financial planner and is executive director of the Ulster County Republican Committee. Mitchell Langbert is an associate professor at Brooklyn College and serves on the Town of Olive Republican Committee.