Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Lincoln, Obama, and How to Push A Country Into War

LvMIC:

At a recent campaign stop in Chicago, Illinois (financed, of course, by American taxpayers), President Obama celebrated the state as “the land of Lincoln” and offered a word of advice to his Republican opponents by hoping that a bit of the 16th president would “rub off on them.”
“Lincoln, the first Republican president … understood that we are a people that take great pride in our self-reliance and our independence but that we are also one nation and one people, and that we rise or fall together.”
What’s self-reliance when the nanny state permeating out of Washington by legislative decree forces you to buy health insurance, fund insolvent entitlement programs, fondles you up at the airport for your own safety, and standardizes public school lunches?

Fallacious notions of collectivism aside, Obama’s statement is revealing of the legacy Abraham Lincoln still holds on American policy, both domestic and foreign.  During its stint at the White House, the Lincoln administration embodied the tenants of European mercantilism during the 17th and 18th centuries.  According to economist Thomas DiLorenzo, perhaps the most eminent revisionist historian on Abraham Lincoln, the former railroad lawyer was “a faithful adherent to [Henry] Clay’s American system of protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare, and a  nationalization of the money supply.”

Even from the get-go of his political career in the Illinois legislature, Lincoln went about lobbying for $12 million in subsidies for corporations engaged in building railroads and canals.  The trend continued into his presidency as Lincoln pressed for the establishment of the Union Pacific Railroad financed by tax dollars.  The UP eventually fell, like many other government subsidized pet projects, into bankruptcy.

If you are looking for a modern day Union Pacific boondoggle, look no further than Obama’s fetish for green energy which has culminated in the bankruptcy of White House favored solar power company Solyndra or the failure of the tax-subsidized Chevy Volt brought to us by Government Motors.  Democrats aren’t alone in this style of cronyism as Republicans have a colorful history of bailing out special interests and looking out for preferred industries.  Even the supposed patron saint of the free market, Ronald Reagan, imposed tariffs on the Japanese for producing superior electronics to their American counterparts.  Obama’s suggestion of the GOP taking a page from the Lincoln playbook is redundant as Washington is already firmly in the grasp of an elite class of bankers and businessmen posing as rugged capitalists.

The most construed aspect of Lincoln’s legacy most assuredly comes down to the aura surrounding the Civil War.  While public schools implant children with the notion that the War for Southern Independence (as Murray Rothbard refers to it) was a necessity for abolishing the cruel and unproductive institution of slavery,  the real impetus for the conflict is routinely ignored.  The common narrative holds that Lincoln and the North fought for the freedom of slaves who were forced into labor by their heartless southern counterparts.  While slavery is indeed an evil institution (enforced by government nonetheless), putting an end to it was the least of Lincoln’s concerns.  In a letter to newspaper editor Horace Greeley dated August of 1862, Lincoln wrote:
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it”
Even more damming was Lincoln’s true regard for the black race, as demonstrated in a debate with his competition for the U.S. Senate Stephen Douglas:
I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position…Free them [slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this. We cannot, then, make them equals.”
The real justification for the Civil War fell on Lincoln’s allegiance to the industrialized North which was looking to use the still agrarian based South as its own slave through which to extort wealth from under the veil of taxation and import quotas.  When the Morrill Tariff passed on the eve of Lincoln’s inauguration, the newly elected president was expected to enforce the measure since the protectionists from the North were vital backers of his campaign and election.  The tariff rate on imports was raised to an average of 36% from about 17%.  Lincoln would subsequently sign into law another tariff increase which raised the average to almost 50%.  This blatant favoritism was due to be severely impoverishing on southern states; hence their desire to secede to ensure they would not serve as a piggy bank up for pilfering by northern industrial interests.  Contrary to the myth spun in modern textbooks, the Union was not, and still isn’t, some divine creation by enlightened men but a voluntary compact by the separate, independent (according to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence) states.  Succession was a legitimate tool to prevent the encroachment of federal authority.  Lincoln’s success with waging the bloodiest war in America’s history forever changed the relationship the federal government has with the states.  Though slavery thankfully came to an end by peaceful means in every other developed nation; Lincoln stopped it with guns and violence.

All of which brings us to today and the growing vilification of Iran’s not-confirmed pursuance of nuclear weapons.  The Republican presidential primary contest has been filled with enough warmongering rhetoric to drive speculation on the future supply of oil.  Meanwhile, the Obama administration is covertly waging an economic war by imposing harsh sanctions and colluding with the European Union in cutting off all global financial transactions with Iranian banks.  From Reuters:
BRUSSELS (Reuters) – Belgium-based SWIFT, which facilitates the bulk of global cross-border payments, will on Saturday cut off Iranian banks blacklisted by the European Union over Tehran’s nuclear program after an EU order and pressure from the United States.
SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) said in a statement on Thursday it would disconnect Iranian financial institutions affected by the sanctions from its messaging system on Saturday at 1600 GMT
The pressure is on as the West, and not just the United States, is pushing Iran into dropping its nuclear program.  Department of Defense head Leon Panetta has already admitted that a military strike is on the table.  Not only would a war with Iran please the cash-laden Israeli lobby but also the military industrial complex always looking for a boost in defense spending.  And just as Randolph Bourne famously declared “war is the health of the state,” another military foray in the Middle East would bring all the justification Leviathan needs to satisfy its never-ending lust for more power and authority.  President Obama recently passed ”National Defense Resources Preparedness” executive order under the auspices of preparing Washington for a “national emergency.”  The order has met little to no media coverage despite its grave implications of giving the federal government free reign over the country’s resources, both public and private, in the case of a crisis.

Think a war with Iran and following oil shock would constitute a “national emergency?”

With a war on the country’s financing already taking place, Iran is being pushed further and further to the edge.  War is sadly almost inevitable at this point.  President Obama may have nothing but praise for Abraham Lincoln but that isn’t surprising as their policies and record of governing hardly differ.  With the exception of Congressman Ron Paul, the other Republican candidates may as well be resurrections of Lincoln.  Mitt Romney had the individual mandate and insurance industry bailout known as Romneycare; Rick Santorum has his love of manufacturing, and Newt Gingrich has space fantasies about building colonies on the moon.  All three want to throw more money into the coffers of the Pentagon.

It would appear that Lincoln is rubbing off on all them just fine.

8 comments:

  1. Miller Brewing CompanyMarch 20, 2012 at 6:21 PM

    We are going to have to ask you to immediately cease and desist your continual theft of intellectual property. Change your blog's name or feel the wrath of Big Beer.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As usual, the libertarian "hide your head in the sand"ism. You and Ron Paul are sounding like you are on the payroll of Ahmedinejad.
    As my last reply to the post on O'Reilly disappeared, I'll summarize again:
    FACT: Iran is on the verge of developing nukes
    FACT: Iran (Ahmedinejad) has vowed (like Hamas) to destroy Israel
    FACT: Radical islamists have proven over and over again that they will do anything to accomplish their goal of global caliphate.
    FACT: Libertarians are no different than the pacifist hippies of the 1960's (infact they are former hippies on the most part if they are old enough). Their policies will get us in to WWIII like pacifist euro policies got us in to WWII

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And you sound like you are on the payroll of big government. I don't know how you deal with being the living embodiment of totalitarianism. Let me ask you AP, do you love Obama's new martial law executive order? You must since you constant spout warmongering rhetoric which is used to justify it.

      Fact: No definitive proof Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

      Fact: Israel would wipe Iran off the face of the Earth if Iran ever attempted to attack Israel. They don't need American's help defending themselves. Why do you supposedly support Israel but then act as if they are a defenseless child?

      Fact: Break into my house and I will show you how much of a pacifist I am.

      Here you are championing a nuclear strike on Iran and accusing me of wanting WWIII. You are off your rocker AP. George Orwell would have loved using you as a character in 1984.

      Delete
    2. National interests and national security ARE miles apart from the progressive vision of big government.
      In my ideal government, the U.S. federal budget would be roughly 1/3 less (about 2 trillion or 12% of the GDP) and military would take up quarter of that. The remaining 1.5 trillion would be spent on remaining activities and debt repayment. That would require eliminating all departments except the defense, state, and possibly a new catch all department that would undertake the few useful activities tthat the eliminated departments do now.

      So, if you think that is still big government - at 12.5% of GDP, then I have no arguments. Just remember your Rahn curve and countless studies by all sides that indicate that optimal government size might be around 15-18% of the GDP. I am aiming for smaller, and it is possible if we unload the entitlements (privatize them) for those under a certain age.

      As for the rest of your response:
      No one is disputing Iran developing nukes. Not the Mossad head, the U.N. or even the Admin. Some like the Mossad head simply said he does not think it will be a existential threat to Israel. Read the news, and don't make me put links up.

      Israel can defend itself if it was a fair fight, but if nukes are involved, how many nukes do you think would effectively end Israel as a nation (that is size of NJ)? Not when 100,000 Iranian missiles (currently conventional) are aimed at it.

      You cannot limit defending yourself to the last resort (break in to my house type attitude)
      If and when society breaks down, what good is your gun inside your home? Think about it! The trick is not to let society break-down (and that goes for wherever we have national interests)

      I am not accusing you of wanting WWIII. All I am saying is that appeasement only brings about wars as history has shown over and over again. Your type of attitude will only lead to bigger wars down the road. It is like cancer, you know?! You can remove it while it is not too serious or wait till it spreads to all your organs. I don't know if you are capable of seeing the similarities, however!

      Delete
  3. You are unbelievable AP.

    There is no such thing as the national interest. I have my interests (no war with Iran) you have yours (war with Iran and apparently spreading homicidal bloodshed). Again, you are no worse than socialist progressives who use collectivist rhetoric to justify their policies.

    Now for just a few arbitrary questions, why keep the Dept. of State? What are they good for besides wasting taxpayer dollars on overpriced banquet food?

    And why do you think GDP is a good measurement of economic production? The government could print up $10 trillion, pay everyone to dig ditches and GDP would be through the roof (with massive inflation, but that's besides the point). So why even regard GDP as a legitimate measure of productivity? If I work on my car, am I not being productive? Yet that doesn't count into GDP numbers.

    And why have the government pay back debt? Why not punish the creditors for lending to idiotic, sociopath politicians? If you want to stop government spending, why not scare creditors to never lending to Washington again?
    After all, taxation is theft, it's not like those lenders are being paid by back because of some moral duty.

    I provided links showing that yes, some are disputing whether Iran is pursuing nukes.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html

    WASHINGTON — Even as the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog said in a new report Friday that Iran had accelerated its uranium enrichment program, American intelligence analysts continue to believe that there is no hard evidence that Iran has decided to build a nuclear bomb.

    READ THE LAST SENTENCE AP!!!
    Stop with the garbage that there is some consensus because there clearly isn't.

    You act like Israel is unarmed when it clearly isn't. Iran doesn't have nukes, Israel does. Again, do you really think Bibi isn't monitoring Iran's activities and wouldn't know if a weapon was fired? Why do you treat Israel like it is so weak and Iran like it is so strong? You contradict yourself.

    Um, if society breaks down, then having a gun inside my home would do me a great deal of good. Not sure what point you were trying to make there.

    When has appeasement brought war AP? When others had initiated violence to begin with? Your correlation/causation radar is totally whack. Here you are advocating for a military strike on a nation that has committed no crime and you say my attitude will lead to war? You openly want WWIII AP. You want a federal government vested with more authority. You never answered my question on whether you like Obama's new executive order where martial law was effectively guaranteed (again), so I must assume you do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no such thing as national interest to likes of you because you live in a utopian world of isolation where we do not have to interact with other nations. That is why the State dept. is necessary unless you want any bureaucrat - a non-diplomat - to deal with other countries.

      I agree that GDP isn't a great measurement but what do you propose we use as a yard stick to gauge our spending?

      As for our debt, we are the global leader (still) and cannot become a banana republic by not paying our debts. That would do nothing to stop our deficit spending. If no one lent us money, we would simply print worthless dollars and still deficit spend. That is why we need radical political reforms before anything else. The current system simply is not condusive to a disciplined approach to spending.

      Finally, I do not want WWIII. I want to avoid it. Your views are against millenia worth of historical evidence. You get peace only through resoluteness and strength, not appeasement!

      Delete
    2. James, you're clearly winning this argument. Not just winning it, but you're in the lead by miles.

      If I may:

      "the State dept. is necessary unless you want any bureaucrat - a non-diplomat - to deal with other countries."

      So, diplomats cost $28 billion? I think we overpaid.

      "I agree that GDP isn't a great measurement but what do you propose we use as a yard stick to gauge our spending?"

      I do hope that you understand that the government could account for 100% of all spending in the economy and that GDP could increase year-on-year, yet quality of life could at the same time decrease exponentially in the same period.

      "As for our debt, we are the global leader (still) and cannot become a banana republic by not paying our debts..."

      Too late, we already are not paying our debts, the only thing keeping us afloat is that our creditors haven't entirely written us off yet (they are an optimistic bunch, just like you would be if the asshole down the street owed you a few grand). In fact, we've already crossed the precipice of banana republic when the Fed became our primary creditor. Just because you're in denial doesn't make the truth any less true. Our debt to GDP ratio has passed 100% and there simply is no way to pay back the debt, especially if we continue to monetize it as we have (and, will probably continue to do in the future). I will tell you right now-- I will not work my ass off to pay back the debts of some asshole who is dead and buried. I just will not do it. I don't have a single debt that I owe, why should I pay the debts of somebody I never met? Further, why should I continue to pay the debts of dead assholes with continually debased money?

      "Finally, I do not want WWIII. I want to avoid it."

      Bullshit! You're talking about using force against millions of people for actions that their government MIGHT consider at some point. Essentially (to break it down), you're talking about breaching and taking over an entire country to stop actions that you THINK might occur in the future, even though there is no evidence that these actions are occurring, nor is there any evidence that they will occur in the future. That's like killing a bunch of my neighbors and taking over my apartment building by force just because some asshole on the 2nd floor said that he's going to kick your ass-- what do I or my other neighbors have to do with the asshole on the 2nd floor?

      "Your views are against millenia worth of historical evidence."

      Please provide some. You'd think that if there were "millenia worth of historical evidence" that you'd be able to provide quite an array of examples, or at least a single one.

      "You get peace only through resoluteness and strength, not appeasement!"

      So, what you're saying is that you get peace through war, not through um, say, peace. That's like saying that you get friendship through hatred, not through kindness. Or, that love comes through rape, not courtship. Yet, that still is not quite right. Having been to war myself, I think that your disturbing understanding of peace is much more twisted. I'll explain.

      Delete
    3. Wars come and go, each has its aggressor and its victims, and each has its beginning and end. Eventually, when the war drums die down and one population has been bested by the other, the fighting ceases and this is called "peace". It is entirely delusional to call this peace, because all that has occurred is that one nation has dominated another in such a way that that nation can no longer fight (if they even wanted to in the first place). This has nothing to do with resoluteness, strength, appeasement, or any other fancy whitewash-word you wish to throw on it; it has everything to do with one nation of peoples dominating another, plain and simple. That is most certainly not peace.

      The only just use of force is that of defensive force, this cannot be argued. Iran has not invaded another nation for hundreds of years, nor does proof exist that they wish to invade another nation. Yet, I am to believe that the United States' armed forces and my tax dollars should be used to not only seize control of the government of Iran, as well as the lives of its population, but also to attack particular areas of the Iranian infrastructure (thus killing many innocent civilians in the process), all because Ahmadinejad has a pretty well-known distaste for Israel and the US regimes? You do understand that he isn't the CiC of Iran, right? I mean, that is kind of like saying that Russia should invade the US and take over all governmental functions because Hillary Clinton called Putin an asshole and wished that he'd die.

      If you want to a war over talk, then pick up your gun and head on over to Iran. Do not drag me, my friends, family and our posterity into it because you feel like a badass. I've been there and done that, and I don't want to ever experience it again. There is no reason that I should pay for or be burdened by your personal beliefs. They're your beliefs, so be a real man and stand by them-- Don't expect me to.

      Delete