Burkean Conservatives Tell Diedrich Knickerbocker-Style History

Diedrich Knickerbocker was Washington Irving's fictional historian who told a fictional account of early New York. In a similar way, Edmund Burke and his conservative followers tell a fictionalized history of the world in which Europe was originally a free market society and through the "progress" of "liberalism" the freedom has eroded to the point where rights established in the 17th century now need to be protected from further inroads. That story is a Diedrich Kinckerbocker history.

Here are a few points about the fallacies of Burkean conservatism:

1. Liberalism was an innovation of Locke and other liberals in the 17th century, and it evolved out of a reaction to state-dominated social organization. The European kings had been attempting to centralize state control of the economy since the fall of Rome. In fact, Rome was the inventor of the mixed economy, centrally controlled political system pretty much what is called "Progressivism" or "state-activist liberalism". Hence, this economy is neither liberal, conservative or Progressive. It is reactionary.

2. "Liberalism" means "of freedom" or pertaining to a free man. It was Locke's and several other theorists' radical creation. Although British institutions had evolved gradually since the Norman invasion, the dominant world view of Europe and Britain was the "great chain of being". Liberalism rejects the great chain of being in a much more fundamental way than any other ideology, more so than Progressivism, mercantilism, socialism or communism which re-create the great chain of being, asserting the need for centralized elites. It is therefore the most radical of any ideology.

3. There was never any other meaning of "liberalism" until the Progressive era in the early twentieth century. There was never a debate between "liberals" and "conservatives" in the 18th or 19th centuries. These terms were later creations, and both are creatures of Progressivism.

4. American conservatism begins with William Howard Taft's presidency. Taft did not like Roosevelt's idea of establishment of the Federal Trade Commission and regulation of trusts. Roosevelt wanted to establish a regulatory agency to manage trusts and to control prices. Taft wanted to regulate trusts through legal prosecution under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Both Taft and Roosevelt were Progressives.

The modern "conservative" movement descends from Taft-style Progressivism. The modern "liberal" movement descends from Roosevelt-style Progressivism. Neither has anything to do with the liberalism of the 19th century. Both are radical breaks.

5. The ideas of current-day "liberals" or "progressives" are a recapitulation of mercantilism and the Roman economy. Hence, they are not "progressive" but reactionary. The ideas of free market capitalism descend from Adam Smith. Both mercantilism and free market ideas were created at the same time. David Hume, Lord Shaftesbury and the other mercantilists and the advocates of free market capitalism, Adam Smith, were rough contemporaries. Smith wrote in response to mercantilist ideas that had been discussed in his lifetime.

6. Federalism, Montesquieu's creation of the 18th century, was NOT a gradual creation and was not conservative. It did exist in Switzerland, so unless the United States had been a colony of Switzerland, federalism's application here was radical. Montesquieu argued that federalism was the best system to create a democratic form of government. There was nothing conservative about the adoption of federalism by the founding fathers. They had read Montesquieu and they applied his ideas anew.

7. Current day "liberalism" is mercantilism. It advocates a strong central state to manage the economy. American liberalism of the nineteenth century lead by the Democratic Republicans starting with Jefferson and on through Andrew Jackson and his followers rejected mercantilism. Mercantilism did not reappear until the Progressive era. The Progressives called mercantilism "Progressivism".

8. Alexander Hamilton and John Adams were Federalists. Washington was NOT A FEDERALIST. Hamilton advocated mercantilism. Adams, who had been Washington's vice-president, was the only elected Federalist. The Federalists supported the anti-libertarian Alien and Sedition Acts. Adams lost in 1800 and the Federalist Party disappeared, completely and soundly rejected. Although Hamilton's Bank of the United States continued until 1836 (it had been terminated and then re-established in 1816), it was terminated as the country became more committed to freedom and less committed to mercantilism.

9. The debate between "conservatives" and "liberals" in the twentieth century was between two sets of mercantilists, neither of whom focused on the chief aspects of free market capitalism that characterized the nineteenth century.

Hence, American conservativsm is NOT CONSERVATIVE. It conserves nothing. It is an aberration from the evolution of the American economy in the nineteenth century and it asserts insitutions such as the Federal Reserve Bank, economic regulation and Social Security that have absolutely no continuity with the American past.

To assert an American conservativism, conservatives have a choice of several illogical claims.

1. They can claim that it is conservative to support the Progressivism of Roosevelt but not the laissez faire economics of Jackson.

2. They can claim that it is conservative to support the 18th century mercantilism of Hamilton and Hume but not the 18th century free market ideas of Smith and Jefferson.

3. They can claim that it is conservative to support the free market ideas of Jackson, but to reject the older Roman and 16th century emphasis on centralization (Henry VIII, for instance, aggressively centralized monarchical power and stripped away the aristocrats' local armies and other of their powers).

There is little that is conservative about the Bill of Rights. These were innovations that were occurring and need to evolve as stresses on freedom change. There is nothing conservative about any of it.

Rather, there is a choice between state control, which goes back to the Egyptian, Persian and Greek times and before, and freedom, which also goes back to the days of Athens. There is nothing "progressive" about state control (and calling it "liberal" is Orwellian) and there is nothing "conservative" about rights.

There is liberalism or libertarianism and there is authoritarian or totalitarian authority. "Progress" or "conservation" are ruses and are used for deceptive purposes.

But Will They Really?

I just received this from Cindy Johansen

>Chris received this from the State Comptroller office today...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Investigations@osc.state.ny.us
To: nynuaco@aol.com
Sent: 10/20/2009 4:05:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: Re: Town of Olive


Mr. Johansen:

This is to advise that the Office of the State Comptroller has received your complaint concerning the Town of Olive. Please be assured that our staff is reviewing this matter for appropriate action.

Thank you for bringing this matter to Comptroller DiNapoli’s attention.

Senator Durbin Lies, Covers Up, Assists ACORN

Someone who lives in my town told me that they personally observed leaders of ACORN in southern Texas involved in drug dealing and extortion. To a GREEDY DEMOCRAT like Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), racketeering, criminal violence, voter fraud and drug dealing are insufficient to bar ACORN from receiving our tax dollars.

Meanwhile, sales at my local supermarket are down, apparently because GREEDY DEMOCRATS in the Town of Olive, New York, are raising taxes by TEN PERCENT in order to fund the Democratic Town Supervisor's (Berndt Leifeld's) political glad handing. People cannot afford to eat as varied a diet because their taxes are astronomical in order to pay for billions in profits of the Democrats' client hedge fund managers.

Glenda McGee is right, though. Sales of SPAM are WAY UP. Thanks to the Democrats, Obama and their greedy, FIVE TRILLION DOLLAR BAILOUT, AMERICA IS ON A SPAM DIET--Except of course for cronies of crooked Democratic politicians, Durbin's friends at ACORN, George Soros and the array of Wall Street and hedge fund welfare mothers.

One of the great men of Illinois, Jim Crum of Tinley Park, just wrote a letter of protest to Illinois's DUKE OF GREED, Senator Richard Durbin.

>Senator Durbin:

I really hope that one of your staffers, and not you yourself, wrote this missive below.

The only abuses ACORN ever reported are the ones that were publicly pointed out by third parties. And only after sustained adverse publicity were people fired, and in every instance it was always the management throwing the little people under the bus. The first few times this happened, one might overlook this operational failure, but eventually...

Currently, 12 states Attorney General's Office are running investigations on this organization and yet from your communication below, this is apparently insufficient evidence? If not, what burden of proof could possibly be strong enough to correct your course of action? Be advised, ACORN had a central role in the recent mortgage mess, and in a sense, they are an "unindicted co-conspirator". While a side issue, it is not a small matter in of itself.

Here's the bottom line: Your office-and those of your colleagues- was alerted directly and frequently very early on to the problems with ACORN in 2007, 2008, and 2009. Your staff and you for yourself, did just exactly what? Perhaps had you shown interest in what was being communicated to you, this matter may have been prevented? No matter, but please kindly explain to me how there are not enough data points to make a reasonable and logical conclusion about how this organization operates. If it were not so politically protected, can you reasonably tell me that your opinion and behavior would not be different?

Rather than write, call me.

My number is on file.

Jim Crum






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Correspondence_Reply@durbin.senate.gov"
To: jcrum...@sbcglobal.net
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 8:50:23 AM
Subject: Message From Senator Durbin

October 15, 2009


Mr. Jim Crum
PO BOX


Dear Mr. Crum:=

Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns about federal funding for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). I appreciate hearing from you.

I've seen the videos and I am appalled by them. I am also troubled by the discoveries of voter registration fraud, and I am glad ACORN reported the incidents to the authorities. These employees have been fired, and ACORN is being investigated by state and federal agencies for misconduct and potential misuse of government funds. Anyone who has broken the law should be prosecuted.

ACORN deserves much of the criticism it has received for allowing this type of behavior to happen. ACORN has voluntarily engaged an independent auditor, suspended the affected programs, and implemented a new initiative to train all staff on its code of conduct to prevent future incidents like these. These are important steps to address serious lapses.

Although ACORN was wrong, the legislation that was offered on the Senate floor was not the right response. It put Congress in the position of prosecutor, judge, and jury. It pronounced guilt without benefit of trial, and then applied the penalty to the entire organization because of the sins of a limited number of specific employees.

Congress should not, because of the misconduct of those ACORN employees who have now been terminated, permanently deny assistance to thousands of families who have been receiving ACORN's help to avoid predatory lending and foreclosure.

I have introduced a Senate amendment that would direct the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a review and audit of federal funds received by ACORN, to determine whether any federal funds were misused and, if so, the amount of funds involved and how they were misused. GAO would be directed to submit a report to Congress identifying what steps have been taken to recover any funds that were misused, what steps should be taken to prevent the future misuse of any federal funds, and whether ACORN and federal agencies have taken all necessary steps to prevent any future misuse of federal funds. This information should guide our long-term decisions about funding received by ACORN.

I believe individuals should be held accountable for their actions, organizations and corporations should be held accountable for the policies they set, and entities should not be permanently cut off based on the actions of individual employees who violated the organization's policies and have been fired. We need a process for addressing wrongs and moving forward with policies that will prevent future misdeeds.

I will continue to support accountability in the use of federal funds, for ACORN and for every other recipient of federal dollars.

Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator

Four Reasons Why Jews Are Leftists

Glenda writes:

>My Israeli girlfriend was here this weekend and I practically grilled her about why so many Jews were leftists. She isn't but if the O was pro Israel she might be.

My response:

I have four points about why Jews are leftists. The first point is the social structure in Europe. Conservatism in Europe, especially eastern Europe where most of the Jews lived, was virulently anti-Semitic to the point of frequent open murder in places like Poland and Russia. In Europe few by the late nineteenth century understood Lockean liberalism and freedom and in eastern Europe those ideas were never known. The two choices were state-based conservatism or state-based socialism. Those were the only two known alternatives in eastern Europe and largely are in Europe to this day. Hence, a large percentage of Jews were communists or leftists in response because that was seen to be the only alternative.

Second, Jewish leftism is due to lack of understanding of freedom (called "liberalism" before 1900). Most of the Jews who came here after 1880 were badly educated eastern Europeans who had suffered considerable discrimination under the Russian Czars. They arrived here at the same time that American elites such as Theodore Roosevelt had dropped belief in freedom and were advocating the welfare state of Bismarck. About 10,000 American graduate students (at a time 5% of the population went to college) attended graduate school in Europe after the Civil War and before World War I. These came back and founded the most important of the American graduate schools. They also came back advocating "Progressivism".

Culturally, the Jews focused on education, and by the early 1900s the American universities were increasingly advocating Progressivism. The German Jews who had been living here since the 1820s or 30s followed the Progressive bandwagon of Roosevelt, and they were an influence on the eastern European Jews (the New York Times is an example of this). No one ever taught the Jews about Locke or freedom and there was nothing in their culture to teach them. American institutions by the early twentieth century had already swung toward statism and Americans were willing to accept the idea that the radical ideas of Lockean liberalism were "conservatism" and the mercantilist/socialist ideas that were a reinvention of manorial feudalism were "Progressivism".

I have European students at Brooklyn College today who come here believing in socialism or statism and no one teaches them otherwise, except for me. Their ideas are scarcely different from those of their peasant ancestors ten generations ago. The last country to finally end manorial social structures was Sweden. There were remanants of serfdom in Sweden until the 1950s in the form the "bruk" system. The Swedes today are, of course, the leaders of socialism. They never left the Middle Ages.

Third, many Jews believe in charity and the idea of what today is called "liberalism" or "progressivism" claims to be charitable. Because they have been badly educated, many Americans, including many Jews, are not aware of the violent nature of government redistribution or the secondary effects described so eloquently in Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson". Many Jews believe that the socialist systems that caused anti-Semitism are more humane than the free market system, but lack the imagination to realize that the countries that their ancestors fled were largely socialist and the country to which they fled was based on Lockean individualism and freedom. Because they have been badly educated, It does not occur to them that the economic opportunities here were due to the economic system. Since they've been ideologically lied to in school and in college, they cannot figure out that the freedom they enjoy here and the economic opportunities were due to freedom, and as they attack freedom they are killing the economic opportunities and ending the tolerance (which has not happened yet but will if things continue on their current national socialist course).

Fourth, many Jews who arrived here after 1900 were faced within 30 years with the Great Depression. Although we now know that the Great Depression was caused by the Fed, it was blamed on free markets. This added to their emotional insecurity about freedom, an idea to which the Jews were never exposed and so fear. The fault is in large part with the Progressives of the early twentieth century. The German Jews, especially Adolph Ochs and the New York Times and also the progressive builder of New York City, Robert Moses, and progressives like co-founders of the New Republic, Walter Lippmann and Walter Weyl, played no small role.