If you watched the (D) candidates at the YouTube/CNN debate last night, you may have been aware of a sickening sensation that began in the pit of your stomach and then headed north. 

In my case, the above symptoms occurred when the candidates were discussing the merits of various Universal Health Care plans. There was no discussion about whether UHC was moral or fair to the providers of Health Care. In fact, the providers were roundly criticized and subjected to the outraged indignation of the candidates.

Nor was there any mention of the efficacy of UHC in delivering high-quality health care.

Not one (D) candidate expressed the viewpoint that in light of all the failed entitlement programs that currently exist, we may want to rethink the very concept of entitlements before we even consider tacking on this new behemoth.

If you are a Leftist, instead of intestinal discomfort, you may have felt the comfort of knowing that soon, oh so very soon, all your health care problems would be swept away as you were nestled snugly in the bosom of the State, cocooned by the warmth and generosity of Universal Health Care. In that case, you may have cheered on your favorite candidate as s/he scored rhetorical points against the evil providers?

It is beginning to appear that UHC is a foregone conclusion by 2009. Why? Because to anyone that is even slightly left-of-center, it appears as a panacea. The rhetoric that is most often heard is: "If the US is the only Western democracy that doesn't 'protect all its citizens' clearly, there must be something wrong with US."

But how do conservatives view UHC? I refer not to the ivory-tower, intellectuals (and TH bloggers) - but real-world voters ..

I must confess that it has a seductive appeal - even for a conservative business owner like me. When I spend $250/mo/employee on health insurance, it is tempting to think of a nanny state stepping in, wiping my tears away, and writing that check on my behalf. It takes some thought to make a connection between that 'warm, fuzzy feeling' and the fact that with UHC, my six-figured annual business taxes will rise by at least 20%.

It is even more difficult for those Americans who are honest, hardworking, conservative and poor to take an ideological stance against UHC on the grounds that it is unfair.

A post by "True American" on a recent Townhall thread caught my attention:
 
True American: "I have no family and can't afford health insurance. Although I work about 45-50 hours a week as a laborer on a landscaping crew my $10/hr doesn't pay for much more than rent and (some) food. While my wages are low due to the influx of illegal immigrants throughout the southeast the fact is I can't afford to get sick. I'm no socialist but healthcare is a dream in this economy."

And later, in the same thread, he writes (in response to another poster): "your husband sounds like a good employer. with all due respect, how does he compete with employers like mine, who will fire me if I have a sick day and doesn't have to factor in employee health into their costs?"

The angst of this poster comes across in his writing.  He sounds like a fiscal conservative who understands the ideological failure of a welfare-state. But, can anyone expect him to vote against a candidate who provides him 'free' health care? If our country allows illegal immigrants to undercut him in the job market, can you fault him for opting for health care as an entitlement.

Yes, I'm aware that two wrongs don't make a right, but UHC will become reality because of our previous mistakes. Every entitlement is a stepping stone to another. If  "True American" is paying taxes to support the Public Education of his neighbor's kids (remember, he has no family), can anyone blame him for expecting something in return?

Although I fear that the tide has turned on this topic, there are plenty of intellectual, moral and pragmatic arguments against UHC. An article that was posted today at WSJ's Opinionjournal.com explains the true costs involved with free health care - in real-world terms. 

"When Louis Brandeis praised the 50 states as "laboratories of democracy," he didn't claim that every policy experiment would work. So we hope the eyes of America will turn to Wisconsin, and the effort by Madison Democrats to make that "progressive" state a Petri dish for government-run health care.

This exercise is especially instructive, because it reveals where the "single-payer," universal coverage folks end up. Democrats who run the Wisconsin Senate have dropped the Washington pretense of incremental health-care reform and moved directly to passing a plan to insure every resident under the age of 65 in the state. And, wow, is "free" health care expensive. The plan would cost an estimated $15.2 billion, or $3 billion more than the state currently collects in all income, sales and corporate income taxes. It represents an average of $510 a month in higher taxes for every Wisconsin worker.

Employees and businesses would pay for the plan by sharing the cost of a new 14.5% employment tax on wages. Wisconsin businesses would have to compete with out-of-state businesses and foreign rivals while shouldering a 29.8% combined federal-state payroll tax, nearly double the 15.3% payroll tax paid by non-Wisconsin firms for Social Security and Medicare combined. "

Read the article titled "Cheese Headcases" at OpinionJournal.com.

 

Defining sacrifice: it is the exchange of something of value for something of lesser value.

A parent who drives an old, beat-up car so that s/he can send a child to a good private school is not sacrificing.

Why?

Because s/he values the kid's education more than the 'new car smell'.

If s/he valued the new car more than the kid's education then it would be a sacrifice.

Incidentally, this is more than just a linguistic or semantic point. It is the basis of the inverted, Leftist world-view that values sacrifice over self-interest. In fact, the road to socialism begins with the acceptance of sacrifice as an unlimited virtue.

When sacrifice is accepted as an unlimited virtue, one person's need becomes a blank-check that has to be cashed by a person of ability. Whether that need is food, shelter or medical care, productive people are instructed to sacrifice their money or their time to fulfil that need.

Let's apply the terminology of economics to the issue. Borrowing freely from WIki:

The law of supply states that quantity supplied is related to price. It is often depicted as directly proportional to price: the higher the price of the product, the more the producer will supply. The law of demand is normally depicted as an inverse relation of quantity demanded and price: the higher the price of the product, the less the consumer will demand. The price of the product acts as a messenger between consumer and supplier - each plays their role without intervention or external control.

The laws of supply and demand state that the equilibrium market price and quantity of a commodity is at the intersection of consumer demand and producer supply. Here, the quantity supplied equals the quantity demanded (as in the Figure), that is, there is an equilibrium that is created without any external intervention. 

In the topsy-turvy Leftist world, people accept the proposition that  "sacrifice is an unlimited virtue". Suddenly, the "needs" of consumers become an unlimited blank-check drawn on the suppliers. The more something costs, the higher the demand for it. For example, as Health Care costs rise, so does the demand. The demand curve (Price vs. Quantity) shows a direct proportionality instead of the usual inverse relationship!

If an equilibrium exists at all, it must be at a higher price than before due to the change in the demand curve.

What happens to the "suppliers"? To mitigate the price increase caused by a 'need-based' demand curve, Leftists typically require suppliers to continue to deliver their products and services at 'fixed' prices, irrespective of their own self-interest, and much below the equilibrium level. The 'fixed' price will cause some suppliers to stop producing - but others may continue to produce as long as someone (Govt = single payer) can pay the higher prices. It is axiomatic that taxes must go up to pay for the increased prices.

The result of this intervention is that there will be a scarcity of commodities - although no such scarcity existed previously, when suppliers and consumers reached an equilibrium of price and quantity.

I don't knock Mother Theresa and Gandhi for their individual choices and actions. Within the context of their chosen philosophies, they were exemplary and consistent practitioners.

I do, however, question the validity of altruism-based philosophies in general - without distinction as to whether they derive from Catholicism (e.g. Mother Theresa) or Hinduism (e.g. Gandhi) - as being either fair or efficacious.

Incidentally, I have the same problem with non-religious altruism. So, this isn't an anti-religious position, but a consistently anti-altruism position. This is important, because many religious people believe (incorrectly) that altruism lies solely within their province. Political ideologies such as Socialism (and its big brother Communism) are also based on perverse altruistic principles.

FAIRNESS
Why is Altruism unfair?
Because it makes victims and slaves of one segment of the population while making parasites of the rest. We saw this 'divide' in Soviet Russia - until the time when the slaves revolted and the entire system collapsed.

What if people are voluntarily altruistic?
That is not necessarily a problem, but if everyone dropped out of profit-making enterprises and went off to 'help the poor', there would be a lot more poor people!

On our planet, nothing is handed to us for consumption; even low-hanging fruit have to be plucked before they can be eaten. And, humans will only work for themselves - otherwise Socialism would've been a great hit! Altruism can only exist if there are productive, selfish people around somewhere to provide 'funds' behind the blank check of altruistic people.

Personal note: in the 1980s, I had the opportunity to visit Calcutta, India - the city in which Mother Theresa spent most of her life (from the 1940s through the 1990s).

As a visitor, I was struck by the unimaginable level of poverty and disease in Calcutta. It is far more visible in Calcutta than in the rest of India.

Not to take away from Mother Theresa's remarkable achievements (in the toughest of all possible environments), but semi-socialist India's policies outpaced her healing touch. The 'system' ground out millions more poor people every year than even Mother Theresa could heal.

However, Mother Theresa deserves full credit for trying to help the victims of Socialism.

EFFICACY
The salubrious effects of Capitalism on a city/state/country are tangible, particularly in a poor country like India. I haven't had a chance to visit India in recent times, but I've heard from people who have visited industrial areas such as Bangalore, a city in Southern India. I understand that it compares quite favorably with Calcutta (now called Kolkata), which is just a few hundred miles away!

An interesting side-note: Bill Gates (in his selfish, Capitalist, dollar-chasing incarnation, not as a philanthropist) has done a lot more for more people in India than Mother Theresa. Although that wasn't his primary motive, surely he too deserves credit for helping the victims of Socialism?

Despite all the fluff that surrounds the 'ideal' of altruism, it:
(a) doesn't accomplish very much
(b) relies on non-altruists to keep it afloat

So, why do so many people support an ideal that is unfair and inefficient?

I realize that It is almost blasphemous to speak ill of great people such as Gandhi and Mother Theresa - but it is worth noting the following:

* Gandhi (and his ideological followers such as Nehru, the first Prime Minister of free India) were proponents of Socialism.

* Sadly, Gandhi was assassinated in 1948. But India adopted a Socialist model from 1947 to 1991. This was a direct consequence of the ideological beliefs of Gandhi and his well-intentioned followers

* Poverty levels increased during that period, despite ambitious-sounding Five Year Plans (a hallmark of all Socialist countries)

One could make a connection between Gandhi's altruistic principles and the poverty that Mother Theresa fought altruistically with so much personal courage. The sad fact is that Socialism leads to poverty, which increases the need for people like Mother Theresa.

Beginning in 1991 (the post-Soviet era) however, India began to adopt semi-Capitalist policies. A decade later, India appears to be gaining momentum and could become an economic powerhouse in the decades to come..

It is interesting to note however, that the Communist Party is still the dominant political party in Bengal, the state within which Kolkata lies. Any economic improvements in Mother Theresa's adopted city would have to come in spite of their local government!

 .. when he opined "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good." I realize that he is a fictional character in a movie. And although I don't remember all the details of the movie, ol' Gordo came to a sticky end in the movie - I think that he was eaten by either ET or Godzilla!

Gordo's rather reptilian name (and his untimely passing) are Hollywood's way of convincing us that:
* self-interest is a 'base' instinct in humans
* good humans should practice altruism
* selflessness is virtuous and should be revered

It is no surprise that Hollywood would push the above philosopy. After all, that is the essence of the Leftist credo - but, observe that it is also eerily reminiscent of most religious teachings.

The fact that it goes against the reality of incentive-driven human action is somehow ignored. In fact, this credo has been used successfully (with religion-inspired altruism as a sort of catalyst / facilitator) to gain power and control over others. How ironic is it that Leftists can subvert altruism into a weapon of control and power? How stupid are we that so many of us fall for it?

In the jungle, no one would ask a deer to 'walk, don't run' - for a deer to work against its nature would mean certain death for the deer. But humans are constantly asked to work against their nature. Unattainable (and actually immoral) altruistic 'ideals' are raised that are contrary to human nature.

Leftists create grandiose schemes such as Public Education & Universal Health Care which cannot possibly work with 'normal' humans. You may ask, what is a 'normal' human in this context? Answer: One who responds to incentives based on self-interest.

When those selfless (actually sacrificial) schemes fail, it is blamed on the 'selfish-gene' that inhabits only the bodies of the 'greedy conservative sumbiches' among us.

There have been recent examples of anti-gouging prosecution in which high-minded District Attorneys have initiated legal action against individuals who provided gas, food, water, ice and other commodities at 'inflated prices' in the wake of natural disasters.

Those who advocate or prosecute anti-gouging policies are perpetrators of an ugly fraud against individuals and companies that have broken no objective laws (since there is no force employed in the transaction).

Although the ostensible purpose of those District Attorneys is to 'protect' consumers, the end result of anti-gouging policies is to remove or reduce the supply of those high-priced commodities at a time of high demand. Price in a free-market system is a messenger, a conveyor of information, and serves to properly allocate a resource to its best use at the prevailing price.

All the altruism in the world could not get ice or drinking water into a disaster zone quickly - but self-interest in the form of the higher prices earned by risk-takers would make that happen. If self-interest were encouraged in our culture (despite the circumstances), the proper role of Govt would be to ensure an orderly market, free from chaos and violence. In reality, there would quickly be enough private suppliers that would mobilize to bring essentials into disaster areas, with the usual competitive forces bringing prices into line quickly. 

Unfortunately, even those who believe in 'free-market' principles don't often give too much thought to the underlying moral and ethical principles. When they do, they have to resolve the conflict that it creates with their preconceptions regarding charity and sacrifice.

Note: I recommend the article "Taking from those in need" on the blog titled "Fletch for Freedom"

This is about a friend - yes, really, this IS about a friend - who happens to be a very good engineer.

He charges $150/hr for his engineering consulting services, and often has to turn away projects because of the high demand for his skillset.

On weekends, he spends as much as 20hrs, building homes for Habitat for Humanity - because he 'believes in giving back'.

While consuming an excellent 15yr old Laphroaig single-malt scotch at his house the other night, we got into one of our congenial discussions.

[BTW, did anyone notice the clever product placement in the previous sentence? I am hoping to get a lifetime supply of Laphroaig with this innovative scheme. I'm open to offers from Porsche and Ferrari as well.]

Anyway, while luxuriating under the smoky mellowness that comes from (your name here) single-malt scotch, I suggested to my friend that he should consider working on additional engineering projects for 16hrs during the weekend. He could then use the extra $2400 to pay an out-of-work handyman $60/hr to work a 40hr week, building those homes.  That would give an out-of-work handyman steady employment, putting food on his family's table.

The handyman would get a lot more home-building done in one week than my friend could do over a weekend. Also, since the handyman would probably have better skills in home-building than my intellectual friend, the recipients of this generosity would get better quality housing.

His response - it wouldn't be the same, I feel so much better while working on the homes that I know will help the poor. He also enjoys the camaraderie of working with other like-minded people, for a noble cause.

Question: Is he being selfish? 

Certainly, he has a right to do whatever he wants with his time (and I wouldn't dream of abrogating that right). But isn't this a serious misallocation of resources - a common complaint that conservatives make against socialism?

Let me begin by saying that I admire Mother Theresa for her:

* dedication and perseverance
* single-mindedness and focus
* ability to tolerate hardship in pursuit of her cause
* passionate belief in her cause

However, she presents a particularly thorny problem for the anti-altruism viewpoint!

Personal anecdote:  I sometimes get called upon to 'counsel' kids in their late teens and early twenties. In most cases, it is their parents who send them to me with the suggestion "Talk to Unca VoR, he'll set you straight!"

It is amazing how many times Mother Theresa's name is raised by earnest, thoughtful, intelligent youngsters who have decided to quit school and:

* become a missionary in Africa
* volunteer for the Peace Corps
* fight for environmental causes
* chain themselves to the White House fence

Most of these kids are bubbling with altruistic fervor that begins with years of religious values (not all bad) which set them up for a few years of indoctrination by 'selfless' teachers with a Leftist slant (almost all bad).

Therefore, I bait the hook by asking whether 'tis nobler to donate $5000 a month or $50 a month. The answer is usually the former - but, "I don't care about money". Did I mention that these kids are usually from affluent homes?

My next point is whether they could help (insert favorite cause here) more by chaining themselves to a fence, or staying in school, becoming a (engineer, lawyer, doctor ..) and enhancing their value from $7/hr to $250/hr? Wouldn't they prefer to argue their viewpoint in the Supreme Court, instead of carrying a sign along with the rest of the mob? The answer remains (albeit weaker, this time) "But I don't care about money".

Using their definition, I ask "how could you be so 'selfish' as to look for the instant gratification of marching with attractive people in the streets - when you could do so much more after you get an education? If you were educated, you could (a) donate more or (b) work tirelessly and passionately as an educated crusader for justice - instead of being part of the rabble."

OK, so my success rate isn't very high! But they sometimes send me an email when they are (a) getting married or (b) graduating from college.

Back on the topic of Mother Theresa: I have a lot of respect for her, but my problem is with a world-view that reveres her and despises Bill Gates (except for the few millions he gives away).

Quoting (selfishly) from "Somethin' dirty goin' on?"

"This is a philosophical dichotomy that causes us to 'feel' our way towards huge mistakes - with the noblest intentions at heart and the counterfeit currency of altruism. As a result, we 'feel' that Public Education is the only way that we can ensure a quality education. Or, we just hate the idea that doctors, nurses, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies make a profit while providing life-saving services and products. So, we 'feel' our way towards Universal Health Care.

The result: we pretend to be altruistic, and fake our way through life. Since our affluence comes from actions taken in our self-interest, we feel guilty for our success.

We claim altruism as a Value - but secretly value our affluence - setting ourselves up for guilt over our well-deserved high standard of living. So, the Joy of attaining our real value (earned through hard work and careful risk-taking) has to be hidden.

Perversely, we honor philanthropy over well-earned wealth. We seem to forget that the process of earning wealth is actually more difficult than the process of giving some of it away. The process of earning wealth also directly or indirectly contributes much more to 'society' than a wealthy person's philanthropy. So, why is Bill Gates reviled for earning billions (while revolutionizing the business world), but lauded for giving away a few millions?

What is it in human nature that sets us up for these contradictions? Why are we so susceptible to the mostly manufactured aura of selflessness? If we could answer that, we would have a good understanding of the instinctive dislike that many people have of the profit motive. "

On this blog, I have spent quite some time trying to analyze the causes of America's slow, but inexorable slouch towards the Left. 

Please note that I give due credit for America's success to sound Judeo-Christian principles. However, I have suggested that it is the infiltration of religion-inspired altruism (and the concept of unearned guilt)  into our politics that is responsible for the predisposition of a majority of Americans to accept (a) redistributive economic policies and (b) policies that do not put America's self-interest before others.

It is often stated that one of America's sources of strength is Democracy. Yes, I'm aware of the fact that we are a Republic, and that the distinction is significant. However, we are a Republic that tends to act as though it is a Democracy - to our detriment.

Is there something in Democracy itself that makes a Leftward tilt inevitable?

Consider the following:

* American principles of justice and fairness mandate the need for equality of opportunity, but not of outcomes,

* the concept of equity is predominant in Leftist rhetoric, leading to their entrenchment in positions that seek an equality of outcomes.

* in a democracy, leaders have to seek election (and re-election) by winning a majority of votes from the electorate.

* Since every vote counts equally in a democracy, human predilections such as class envy can play a role in voting patterns. Notice how those weaknesses align very nicely with the Leftist concept of equity.

* It may be easy to brand those moral lapses as un-American, but politicians in a democracy learn how exploit them by proposing redistributive economic policies.

The result: Leftist policies gain ascendancy in America, and with each passing generation we undermine our strength by adopting policies such as Welfare, Medicare, Public Education, Universal Health Care etc.

Unlike that of a Republic, the inherent nature of a democracy forces our leaders to pander to human weaknesses, leading to a Leftward tilt. So, if we expect a democracy to lean to the Right, we are banking on a level of intelligence in our electorate that can overcome this inherently leftward bias.
 
I welcome comments and insights from readers on this topic.

On this, our 231st birthday, it is appropriate to consider the reasons for our success. In such discussions, one hears many people say that America is successful because it was based on Christian principles. Others say that we are successful because we function as a Democracy. Let's examine those positions:

Let me begin by saying that Judeo-Christian principles and Democracy provide a great starting point for any country. And, countries that don't have a good starting point usually don't get very far! 

But there is nothing axiomatic in Christianity that causes a Christian nation to be successful in economic terms. Sidebar: some may question whether economic metrics define 'success' -- but that is a subject worthy of a separate discussion!

Quoting from "The United States of .. Consistency?"
"Many of our laws derived from Judeo-Christian principles - but does that make America a Christian country? If that were true, then we are conveniently forgetting that similar principles also exist in other religions - some of which are also prevalent in 'failed' states. And, yes, there are quite a few fervently Christian countries that fall in the category of 'failed' states.

As an example, consider the Christian countries in Europe that our Founding Fathers fled.

A mathematician could write that equation as:

Christianity + Feudal System = Failure "

Clearly, if Christianity was the silver bullet that some believe it to be, it would've overcome the drag of the Feudal Systems and helped the countries of Old Europe succeed.

So, with a full appreciation of the virtues of Judeo-Christian principles, the question is: what are the next steps after embracing those principles that give us a good starting point. Our Founding Fathers were smart enough to stand firm against contemporary religiosity while retaining and extrapolating the virtues and ethics in a mostly consistent manner. They accomplished this while keeping individual freedom consistently at the forefront. And, in areas that they were not consistent (e.g. Slavery), America paid a price in later years.

Consider the following examples of the extraordinary foresight of our Founding Fathers:

* It would've been easier for them to have extrapolated Christian charity into some form of a benevolent state - but they didn't.

* as a Christian majority, it would have been quite acceptable and convenient for our Founding Fathers to have made Christianity a State religion - but they didn't.

With clarity and prescience, perhaps based on their examination of failed Christian countries, they took steps that ensured our success for centuries.

Incidentally, the same logic applies to Democracy (yes, I'm aware that we are a Republic). There is nothing inherent in a Democracy that leads to success. It is the next series of consistent steps that make-or-break a nation.

* Do they create institutions that interfere with or abridge the rights of their citizens (usually in the name of some 'common good')?

* Is the Govt constrained to do only that which it is allowed (by the consent of the governed)?

* Are the people free to do anything except that which is expressly forbidden (by the consent of the governed)?

The absence of interference, aka  economic freedom, defines Capitalism, which we can thank for our success.

Note: We often miss the point that it is the lack of Govt interference that leads to Capitalism. Our Founding Fathers didn't create Capitalism, they had the sense to 'step out of the way'. Capitalism is the natural order that ensues when free people trade with each other.

In conclusion, it is worth noting that Judeo-Christian concepts and Democracy provided great starting points at the birth of our nation. However, we should be eternally thankful that our Founding Fathers ensured that our country made the correct steps beyond those starting points..

Confession: I am politically conservative and I drive a Hybrid. Since I don't necessarily want to 'plug' a particularly brand of Hybrid automobiles, I will not reveal its identity - except to say that its name rhymes with Boy Yoda Tree Us.

Imagine my surprise when I am treated to smiles from the tie-dyed, pony-tailed and liberally tattooed crowd!

Sometimes it is cute college coeds, with flowers in their hair, who gaze at me approvingly while swaying seductively to the music from their iPods (OK, this is probably just the wishful thinking of a middle-aged male). More often, I get the hail-fellow-well-met nods from aging hippies with bumper stickers that proclaim No blood for Oil and exhibit an inexplicable antipathy for the letter "W" on their Volkswagens. Given my age bracket and dress code, I get the strongest approvals from unwashed, pot-smoking, and sometimes pot-bellied tree-huggers who seem to thrive in the blue-enclave-within-a-red-state that I call home.

Why can't these cats dig it? I am a conservative, and I drive a Tree Us because .. I am .. a technophile! I happen to think that Boy Yoda did a fine job with this new fangled technology.

So, how do conservatives react? Not very well either, I'm sorry to say. Since I don't have any conservative bumper stickers on my Tree Us (or any of my other cars), they jump to the conclusion that I must be an ACLU charter member. One patriot struck up a nonchalant conversation with me the other day in a parking lot, casually soliciting my opinions on various topics including nuking Iran (or Iraq, he wasn't feeling very picky that day) into the Stone Ages. Presumably, he hoped that he could metaphorically "tear me a new one", once I copped to my blue-ness. He seemed either puzzled or disappointed when he found that my views were slightly to the Right of his! With his preconceptions in tatters, he slunk off into the fading sunset.

Can't I just enjoy the Sounds of Silence when my Tree Us automatically shuts off the gas in stop-and-go traffic while on my way to drop my kids off at school? Hey, don't hate me because I don't fit the mold as a conventional Tree Us driver. I'm driving my kids to the private school in which they are enrolled. I vote with my good, conservative feet (and dollars) away from Public Education, something that should be anathema to all conservatives in our mostly Capitalist country.
 
Then there are those who proclaim loudly that they would like to take their aptly named Expedurban SUVs and grind a Tree Us into the Japanese beer cans from whence it came! Personally, I think that people have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of gas-guzzlers. But does that right make the drivers of gas-guzzlers any more patriotic or conservative than a techno-geek like me who likes his Tree Us?

When did conservatism become synonymous with anti-environmentalism? For the record, I don't believe in the so-called solutions that Leftist environmentalists propose. Nor do I have to believe that Anthropogenic Global Warming is drowning polar bears to drive a Hybrid when gas is $3/gallon!

A few years of this and I may start to develop some empathy for those poor, mis-understood Limousine Liberals, some of whom also enroll their kids at Private Schools while extolling the virtues of Public Education for everyone else! Nah, that will never happen, I have nothing in common with those hypocrites ..

Disclosure: I was tempted to title this post "Free Willy", but refrained from doing so. I didn't want to attract a disproportionate number of animal lovers or pornography seekers -- not that there is anything wrong with those weirdos, of course!

We are given free will, and simultaneously told about the unlimited virtues of selflessness and sacrifice.

This sets us up for a contradiction, which is usually resolved by saying that "we should be selfless by our own volitional choice, otherwise it doesn't count".

That, unfortunately, is the first step towards accepting a philosophy of self-sacrifice.

Socialism's biggest victory (albeit a Pyrrhic one) has been the voluntary acceptance of the producers that they should live for the sake of their parasites.

In America, many hardworking people who are not of the looter / moocher persuasion routinely vote for entitlements, or for politicians who support ever-expanding programs such as Universal Health Care, Public Education and Welfare.

Those benevolent souls are convinced that they are 'doing the right thing' and 'levelling the playing field' by their charity - hey, if it's voluntary then it must be a good, charitable impulse, and who are we to argue? In fact, they would argue that it is the baser nature of conservatives that makes us oppose such impulses!

So, can American conservatives ever turn the tide against Leftists?

Not without eliminating the jujitsu of Leftist rhetoric. The first step is to recognize that Leftists are using the concept of altruism (which many conservatives revere) against us - that is the very essence of jujitsu. Once the terms are identified, we can do battle, armed with the proper intellectual and ideological ammunition.

It is important to understand the effect that religious beliefs can have on the American Public's acceptance of certain aspects of Socialism.

A recent survey showed that 91% of Americans believe in some form of religion. Therefore, it would be foolish to ignore the fact that there are religious people on both sides of the political spectrum. Many conservatives dismiss ALL leftists as "godless commies", as though all leftists are the hardcore ACLU-types.

My contention is that for every one of those 'secular leftists' there are many more who lean towards the 'progressive' side of the spectrum because of their religious beliefs. In most cases, it is due to their seemingly logical but misguided application of religion-inspired altruism.

No doubt there are also those who deliberately take advantage of this grayness in our moral code. Whether they happen to be parasitic recipients who live off their productive neighbors - or politicians who pose as modern day Robin Hoods - their nature cannot be revealed until we identify the weakness in our own political/moral code.

Conservatives who fail to grasp this have a limited understanding of what predisposes many decent people towards the left. 

But why is this a big deal?

In my opinion, we conservatives could use this understanding to widen the appeal of our positions. For example, some Religious Leftists will grasp the fact that altruism becomes malignant when it crosses over from the private space to the public arena (see previous article titled: Altruism causes .. Cancer?).

Also, conservatives should be able to attract some moderate Leftists by the strength of our economic ideas. Of course, that would require a consistent focus on American self-interest and  laissez-faire economics on the part of conservatives. Recent trends have not shown that consistency, but one can only hope ..

Finally, it is interesting to look at the social issues that seem to take center-stage in our political psyche! It is a given that many on the Religious Right vote (R) because of their social stance. But how many votes are lost in the process? I'm referring to voters who believe in American self-interest and laissez-faire economics but are socially liberal.

Clearly, it would be useful to identify the lead issues that make people decide to vote (R) or (D). Could it be that there is a large proportion of (D) voters who might be persuaded to vote for an (R) platform if social issues were not in the mix? Similarly, do a majority of (R) voters assign a higher priority to social or economic issues?

So, here are two $64 questions. If you choose to respond, please consider each question to be independent of the other:

Q1) If the (R) party adopted a neutral stance on social issues, but strengthened its stance on American self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism, would you vote (R) or (D)?

Q2) If the (D) party abandoned its current stance on social issues, but strengthened its existing stance on the environment and on re-distributing affluence in America and the world, would you vote (R) or (D)?

For the purposes of each one of these questions (independently), let's assume that the other party remained unchanged. Examples of 'social' issues are gay rights, abortion, etc. Also, let's assume that there is no (I) or 3rd party position.

Sorry about the provocative title -- but, now that I have your attention, please consider the following questions:

* Why is it that we Americans are conditioned to look down on the source of our affluence and fall for the double-fraud of socialism? Note: it is a double-fraud because we have to pretend that
(a) it is the ideal condition of man to live for others
(b) we consistently (and willingly) practice the above 'ideal'

* Why is Bill Gates hated for his well-earned wealth, but praised for his philanthropy? The reality is that he has 'given' so much more to the world while 'selfishly' pursuing his self-interest!

* Why do we conservatives have difficulty in expressing our principles in terms of self-interest?

* Why do the synonyms for self-interest almost always have negative connotations in our culture?

Most conservatives would agree that when the 'germ' of altruism crosses over from the voluntary / personal space to the coercive / public space, it metastasizes into Socialism.

In fact, that is what I mean by the Trojan Horse in a previous article. Many of our 'good' values derive from religion, and can cross the private/public boundary without a problem. For example, religious exhortations against murder, rape and arson can cross over into our politics without any problem

But altruism cannot be extrapolated across that boundary without becoming malignant!

If we identify this phenomena unequivocally, there is hope that conservatives will regain the ideological higher ground, adding strength to the pragmatic defense of our positions against Socialism.

After 11/9 (the fall of the Berlin Wall),  a few left-leaning countries such as China and India got the message. In their own anemic way, they have started privatizing their nationalized industries.

We Americans, however, have continued to slouch Leftward, despite the proven success of Capitalism as an ideology. Our two dominant political parties seek to push new entitlement schemes down our throats. And we seem to accept the inevitability of this process. A majority of Americans either (a) don't believe in our own successful model, or (b) simply don't understand it.

On this blog I try to analyze the reasons for this disconnect. Others do a fine job in enumerating the mistakes of those who believe in Socialism. I try to identify the lapses in our thinking process that predispose us to incorrectly believe in the goodness of Socialism.

Consider the following:

* the free lunch syndrome explains the predisposition of the beneficiaries (I call them the parasites) towards Govt largesse.

* obviously, most 'parasites' don't spend a lot of time thinking about the immorality of their actions. However, if any of them felt the slightest twinge of moral compunction, it could be easily assuaged by using the glory of victimhood. But, what is the source of the moral code that allows them to claim that mantle?

* how do we explain the acquiescence of the producers (victims)? Why would they sign onto a 'free lunch plan' with themselves as the entrée?

* without the acquiescence (tacit or otherwise) of the producers, there would be no loot for the Govt to give away.

* politicians of both sides (but more often the Leftists) understand that they can benefit both from the 'free lunch syndrome' of the parasites and the guilt of the producers.

* It's a double win for politicians - encourage the victimhood of the parasites by means of the funds extorted from guilt-ridden producers; collect votes from both sides everytime they pass GO (which is every 2 or 4 yrs)!

* many of the 'producers' have a moral code based on the virtues of sacrifice, altruism & charity. As a result, they are susceptible to politicians who subvert the producers' moral code - forcing them to accept an unearned guilt for their well-deserved success.

* many who disagree with my viewpoint make a lot out of the voluntary aspect of charity vs. the confiscatory aspect of Socialism. They suggest that it makes all the difference in the world - and maybe they have a point in some spiritual context! But, in the political context, it does pre-condition us to accept the premise that producers exist for the sake of non-producers.

* once it is accepted that producers exist for the sake of their parasites, the rest are just mechanical details of noble-sounding but destructive redistributive economics!

Our K-12 system shortchanges all students, irrespective of ability. Like most Statist systems, it purports to eliminate the inequity of opportunity. But the result is a low-quality, high-cost system for all!

A common complaint that one hears about free enterprise education - or even about vouchers (which I consider a step in the right direction) - is that such a system would cater to bright kids, but leave behind below average kids as well as those with learning or physical disabilities. Such complaints are usually voiced as follows: "who would want those below average or disabled kids?"

Free enterprise education would satisfy the demands of bright kids, below-average kids as well as those with learning/physical disabilities. Parents will provide the demand for services commensurate with their kids' needs and abilities, and the market will provide the supply at a price that provides access for all. If a safety net is required for some extreme hardship cases, there could be some level of Govt aid.

So, who wants the below-average kids and those with disabilities? Answer: Private schools that specialize in those niches of the education market would seek out and actively market their services to parents whose kids need special attention. Are those schools likely to cost more? Yes. But probably not significantly more than the present average for all kids.

The most important result will be that with higher quality education there will actually be fewer below-average kids!

This is the point that eludes most supporters of Statist programs. Note: I don't mean that the availability of higher quality education will necessarily have a near-term positive effect on the IQ distribution. However, there will be a better match between the needs/abilities and the supply. As in all other cases, free market capitalism provides the best utilization of scarce resources.

If you disagree with the above: consider the American market for food, which remains mostly in the free-enterprise arena (notwithstanding agricultural subsidies, food stamps etc). Are there any significant problems with the production, delivery or access? No. If anything, there is an oversupply .. and some bad choices made by individuals that lead to overconsumption and obesity!

Without the 'benefit' of Govt control, Americans happily deal with food choices that bewilder visitors from countries with planned economies. To many fresh-off-the-boat visitors, a trip to an American grocery store is like a trip to Disneyworld!

Let's see if we can build on the education: food analogy by looking at the demand and supply. Of course, since there is choice in the system, parents can choose the type of program that meets the needs of their child and their budget.

* bright kids : consumers of gourmet foods [moderately expensive]
* average kids : the mass market, with the most choices, ranging from high-quality food and junk food [average cost, determined by parental choice]
* below average kids : specialty foods [moderately expensive]
* kids with disabilities and/or special needs : specialty foods, nutritional supplements [more expensive]

What is ruining America - making us slouch Leftward with every passing generation - is our moral predisposition towards altruism. What remains of our intellect leads us to laissez-faire capitalism and freedom. But our moral code extols sacrifice, so we lack ideological ammunition against the illogic of welfare statism or any other Leftist concept.

Many conservatives assume that conservatives are immune from the weakness that is brought about by the lack of moral ammunition against welfare statism. However, there is plenty of proof that Republicans too, have slouched to the left over the past few decades. It is well worth our while to examine the reasons for this.

Consider this: despite all evidence to the contrary, why do so many Americans moisten up when a politician (of either side) makes a generous campaign promise - with public money?

Whether the issue is Universal Health Care, Public Education, Global Warming, Illegal Immigration or Welfare, good intentions (and sincere-sounding, heart-string-tugging sound bites) seem to be the currency du jour with voters.

Arguments based on American self-interest just don't seem to cut it with voters any more! When asked why our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq is more important than, say Darfur, we flinch from saying "because American self-interest is involved in the former, not the latter". Since that would lead to a chorus of "Blood for Oil" and "selfish Americans", we have to couch our responses in smarmy political rhetoric such as "we're fighting for a better Iraq".

Similarly, when asked why conservatives oppose Universal Health Care, we flinch from saying that it is morally obscene because it makes parasites of one segment of our population and victims of the other. Hmm .. perhaps those are the Two Americas, that Senator Edwards conjures up?

Sure, we can oppose every new entitlement scheme with the plaintive cry "it doesn't work as intended". And we would be right - with plenty of factual and anecdotal evidence.

But, unless we attack the cause of the American public's support for such policies, this will be a losing battle.

I have taken the position (not particularly popular at TH) that religion-inspired altruism is the root cause of this predisposition. While that may be a sweeping generalization, it does seem to be a resonant ideological thread in our country.

I hold out hope for an electorate that would put economic issues and American self-interest before social issues. Otherwise, we will continue to muddle through ideologically and be robbed blind .. as we slouch Leftward.