About Me

Name: Drexel Kleber,...
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Why We Need Conservatism More than Ever

What is it that’s all the talk in the world of American finance these days? I’ll give you a few seconds....what have you been hearing a lot of? What are you and your family talking about? 

Let me give you a clue:  Is it that you’ve got to spend, spend, spend to help the economy recover?  Nope, and now you’ve got it, don’t you? 

All the talk is about saving. CNN reported on June 28 that consumer saving is now up to an average of $42/week per household, the highest savings rate since 1994.  The June 20, 2009, issue of US News and World Report featured an article by Kimberly Palmer entitled Frugal Forever

Apparently, it’s only the US consumer that’s in on the action, though. Our federal government is going on a shopping spree the likes of which we haven’t seen since President Reagan oversaw the largest increase in government spending (as a portion of GDP) in American history.  But Reagan bought STUFF.  President Obama and his sorely out-of-touch cohorts in Congress are a decade behind the times when it comes to spending habits—spending like they’re preparing to be on Lifestyle of the Rich and Famous and their buying entire INDUSTRIES. 

michael_lind280x350Michael Lind, the director of the New America Foundation’s Economic Growth Program, wrote in the May/June issue of Foreign Policy that “….the post-crisis financial sector will be downsized and more heavily regulated, nationally and internationally…..We can also comfortably wager that government subsidies will rule the day….State capitalism with American characteristics may emerge from the de facto nationalization of the US automobile industry and perhaps other sectors that need to be rescued as the wave of deleveraging works its way through the economy….Millions of [formerly] affluent people are realizing that they will depend more, not less, on public pensions like social security…” 

That doesn’t sound like any “New America” I want to be a part of and its not the kind of New America US citizens are looking to create. Now, more than ever, the US needs truly authentic conservative leadership. Not the kind of Republican leadership that has been mis-identified with conservatism for decades. This kind of conservatism leads to article headlines like those found on FoxNews: FRUGAL AMERICANS HURT ECONOMIC RECOVERY. foxnewsThat kind of Republican, “Oh dear, look how big business is suffering,” conservatism bears little resemblance to the conservatism that is based on the idea of CONSERVING.

 
python_eats_sheepIt's hard to believe that true conservatives would want to CONSERVE their money, I know. But there it is—I said it. They’d also like to conserve the American ideals of a free market economy, not a federal government engorged and nauseated on the unchewed consumption of spoiled American industry that should have remained on the buffet table in the first place. 

Most Americans say the want “smaller government” but only so much as the programs important to the person being asked are not the ones to be downsized.  But today Americans are appropriately curbing their appetite for fiscal consumption. Americans are learning the difference between “want” and “need.”  

Yet our national leaders are still assuming that the things we “wanted” six months ago are the things we “need” today. Why is it that while consumers have the wherewithal to do the things we must do, our representatives don’t share our fortitude? 

The Republican Party clearly needs re-branding. What we’re getting now from Washington is exactly what we should have expected from a Democratic President and Congress.  But I still don’t see any real signs that a significant conflagration will rage across the old Republican Party, laying waste to the dead and rotten ideas that have come to choke the forest of politics and make room for new ideological sprouts.  Where is conservatism pollinating in the first place? To whom should we look for someone brave enough to tell America “No” at a time when we desperately need it? 

I have no answers (they’re certainly not in South Carolina) but I know the wellspring from which the right answers will come: true conservatism. Individuals who understand what has made America great. Individuals with the courage to do the right thing even when it’s unpopular. Individuals who are willing to be progressive in their pursuit of new ways to make the America work for Americans. 

Image = democrat_vs_republicanThe Republican Party lost in November. It lost because it became like the Democrats and couldn’t do what they do as well as they do it.  Republicans make for inferior Democrats and that’s the lesson of this election. Stop trying to beat the Democrats are their game. The Democrats are reacting to problems that are already a year or more old. They are not being progressive and proactive. They are being reactive. 

I’ve always found it interesting that conservatism seeks to conserve that which liberalism brought about. Our founding fathers threw off their government, chucked organized religion and staged a revolution—not many things more liberal than that. Yet it was their action in pursuit of grand ideas that birthed the world’s greatest experiment in self-governance: an experiment that is jeopardized by ideological stagnation. 

founding-fathers

Americans need conservatism now more than ever.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The World in 50 Years: War's a Good Thing

I like ideas: the bigger the better. I'm a dreamer and the future fascinates me. So I was intrinsically drawn to the July/August issue of the Atlantic Monthly whose cover announced THE IDEA ISSUE: HOW TO FIX THE WORLD. The article coincides with my reading of The Way We Will Be 50 Years from Today, edited by 60 Minutes' Mike Wallace. 50 Years from Today collects thoughts from 60 of the world's greatest minds about what the world will look like in 2058. It's a fascinating collection, though most of the ideas seem either self-indulgent or benign. wallace book.jpg There are a few ideas in 50 Years that really stretch me, though: bioengineering the human genome "and including all the knowledge up through a great college education directly in the child." (George F. Smoot). "The technological ability to read other people's minds" (E. Fuller Torrey). The ability to "print" products with "an inexpensive tabletop molecular nanofactory" (Ray Kurzweil). Or, the most outrageous, the ability to communicate by thinking (Kim Dae-jung).

So with the ideas of Atlantic Monthly's contributors and Mike Wallace's collection in my head, let me share with you my radical vision of the world in 2058.

58 chevy.jpg

Have you got a window? Open it. Look outside. This is the world in 2058. Much as the man in 1958 might feel if he looked out his window and saw our world, that is how we will feel in 2058. Sure, our world is snazzed up a bit from 1958--the '58 Chevy has been replaced by the Prius and in 50 years, the Prius will be replaced with a ChryFiat Quest. Whatever.

prius.jpg

It's fun and sexy to imagine that all our technological dreams will come true. But neither science nor policy is sufficient to facilitate such a rapid transformation. And face it, our perspective is skewed. Across time I can think of only one 50 year period in which the world changed so dramatically that it might render a time traveler completely flummoxed and that is the period spanning the start of the 20th century.

One of my favorite questions when I hosted a talk radio show centered on this story. Life in 1893 was virtually unchanged from the dawn of man. While the industrial revolution was just getting started its effects were not yet far reaching. Most of the world was still engaged in subsistence living--people burned candles to see and fires to cook. They rode horses to work and to do errands.

apollo 11 lift
    off.jpg
If you had told someone in 1893 that in just 75 years we'd put a man on the moon, he'd have thought you insane. None of the infrastructure for such a journey existed. No flight, essentially no cars, no electricity, home appliances, computers. He'd have asked you, "How are you going to build a ladder that big?" So my question became, "What would I have to tell you would happen in 2084 that would make you just as incredulous?"

Our perspective is out of wack. We expect that the world will continue to adapt in that manner. I simply don't see it. The period of transformation of the last 100 years is an aberration. It's like a makeover for a homely girl--an incredible metamorphosis into something new and wonderful, but she can't do another makeover every month and realize similar gains. The law of diminishing returns prohibits it.

If I have one prediction it is this: I optimistically believe the world will be filled with war and strife.

"Optimistic," Drex?

Indeed.

revolutionary war.jpg
Our Revolutionary War was a conflict born of ideas. A hundred men or so--radical, liberal, progressive thinkers--had a notion of liberty in action. They fed off each other and these ideas took hold. The War of Independence was a war to birth those ideas into reality. It wasn't a war for power or personal gain. Knowledge not greed was the seed of strife.

Today, we see the spread of distributed power generation. Renewable sources like solar and wind power are popping up all over the world. A small solar panel and a laptop bring all the ideas of the world to any village on the planet. Villagers can access virtually any bit of information. That information will power new service industries which will equip villages with money, but more importantly it will show them what the Jones's have. This will be nation-building in 2058. We will literally empower a village and let knowledge do its work. As these ideas take hold and global citizens, too long on the outside of democratic processes and capitalistic opportunities, will go to war to get what's theirs.

solar village.jpg

It will be a sign of American success when the suppressed rise up and fight for their own liberty. That is the only sustainable liberty in the first place. It is what the US should seek in its efforts to spread democracy. Not to MAKE democracies by force but to make possible democracies by knowledge. The success of our efforts will be made manifest as revolutions ripple across Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia.

Ray Kurzweil also postulated that life expectancy in 2058 will increase by a year every year. So with any luck at all I'll still be around in 2058 to have this article thrown in my face when the world is fully at peace for the first time in its history. Of course, if Kim Dae-jung is right, you can call me a moron without ever opening your mouth.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »