Dirt Road Economist :: Common Sense Economics, Thinking and Policy
Dirt Road Economist
My thoughts in a Podcast regarding the “March for Life Rally” held in Klamath Falls last Thursday.
PS – Soon I’ll have a dedicated tab for Podcasts. This is just the beginning; I hope you enjoy listening!
“Miserable is the lot of that people whose every concern
depends on the WILL and PLEASURE of their rulers.”
– Dissent of Pennsylvania Minority
In the article, Under the Guidance of an Arbitrary Government, I mentioned the anti-Federalists and I have received several questions about their ideas. Aside from, “Who are those guys?”, I received many questions about the motivations of the anti-Federalists, and their recommendations during the Constitutional convention of 1787.
Today I’ll start a series answering those questions and I’ll show you the similarities between their positions and the mindset of today’s Tea Party patriots. The Federalist and the 
anti-Federalists were both vibrant contributors to the creation of our Nation, our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
Anti-Federalism refers to a movement that opposed the creation of a stronger U.S. federal government and which later opposed the ratification of the Constitution of 1788. The previous constitution, called the Articles of Confederation, gave state governments more authority. Led by Patrick Henry of Virginia, Anti-Federalists worried, among other things, that the position of president, then a novelty, might evolve into a monarchy.
The anti-Federalists were the Tea party heroes of the day because they recognized the sublime, self-evident and universal truth of Lord Acton’s statement, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
A Pulitzer Prize historian, Leonard W. Levy, notes, “The Framers and their supporters are known to us as the Federalists, and those who opposed ratification are the Anti-Federalists. The name Anti-Federalist was an opprobrious (shameful) epithet artfully fastened on those who opposed ratification by those who shrewdly called themselves the Federalists. (History is written by the victors.)”
The “victors” knew the power of propaganda in swaying the public mind. We see the same distorted and inaccurate clamor in today’s issues like “environmental justice”, “income equality”, or “a women’s right to choose.” The terminology or language of the debate is framed purposefully so that the opposite view automatically gets a negative sounding connotation. For example, the “pro-choice” position was chosen rather than the more accurate title “pro-abortion”. This makes those holding the opposing view sound tyrannical because they are against choice and freedom. When the stated position is positive, what is left but negativity?
Using the pamphlet, entitled “Dissent of the Minority of the Pennsylvania Convention” from December, 1787, as a sample we can see the clear articulation of sound anti-Federalist ideas.
The anti-Federalist believed in local governance and representation, just like today’s Tea Party. They accurately predicted these potential problems with consolidated power under the Constitution:
Couple these well-warranted fears about state sovereignty with Jefferson’s dream of many thousands of small government jurisdictions composed of local communities and you can see the beauty of dispersed governmental power. With these historical insights we can understand why liberty-loving Americans are so disappointed with Speaker Boehner and the establishment Republicans in their efforts to consolidate more federal power under President Obama’s recent “CROmnibus” legislation.
As citizens, you and I are supposed to carry the ultimate authority. Our ability to have meaningful engagement becomes evermore diluted as federal consolidation diminishes our voices. Jefferson agreed. In his correspondence with Abigail Adams he admitted, “If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one [a nation] of the most extensive corruption; [it will be] indifferent and incapable of a wholesome care over so wide a spread of surface.”
The fears and questions raised by these Founders are the same ones I have today:
Thoughtfully consider these questions and send me your comments.
Check in next time as we tackle more of the fundamental ideas voiced by the anti-Federalists and read their recommendations for our future.
Matt Kibbe, of FreedomWorks, reported today that over 13,000 phone calls and 20,000 messages were received by the U.S. House encouraging House members to vote against Rep. Boehner for Speaker of the House.
In his correspondence Kibbe told supporters, “You more than doubled the number of Republicans standing up to Boehner when you got 25 Republicans to vote against the Speaker– the biggest number in 100 years.”
This is fantastic because these true representative heroes, (although, “defectors” from the elite Republican ruling class), stood on principle. They did not stand on personal gain, enhanced standing or promises for committee chair positions. They stood on principle!
This incident, with only twenty-five “defectors”, reminds me of a historical event – the Dissent of the Minority of the Pennsylvania Convention.
On December 18, 1787, twenty-three men wrote out their well documented and succinct reasons for opposition to the ratification debate regarding the proposed U.S. Constitution. They had numerous reasons, including taxes, standing armies, debt, and a well-founded fear that, “under the guidance of an arbitrary government, they may be made the unwilling instruments of tyranny.”
These twenty-three men, faced tremendous ridicule and harassment in their public lives. The start of the ridicule came in regards to some dire predictions (all of which have actually come true) and they were accused of voicing arguments whose, “harangue is long and insidious.”
The daily newspapers distributed rebuttals which also labeled them, “among the weak, the wicked and designing.” These twenty-three men were falsely accused of being of a, “disposition, beyond all conception, obstinate, base, and politically wicked.”
It is not the degree of political rancor that makes one decision right and another wrong. Neither is it determined by public sentiment or personal choice. It is not this particular vote or that one. Rather, right and wrong are stipulated by underlying principles. Right and wrong aren’t ever-changing, or indeterminate and they must be confirmed by historical experience.
For example, through the ages, murder and theft have been decidedly wrong. It does not matter how big your army is, or how ruthless your neighborhood gang might be – it is wrong to murder and steal.
The underlying principle concerns human rights and the unjustified killing of innocent human beings or the inherent self-evident rights of persons with regard to their property.
I think our experience today, confirms their good reasons for skepticism. Let’s see what these twenty-three patriots had to say:
“…the powers vested in Congress by this constitution, must necessarily annihilate and absorb the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the several states, and produce from their ruins one consolidated government, which from the nature of things will be an iron handed despotism…”
AND…
“…the question then will be reduced to… whether… the people of America are now willing to resign every privilege of freemen, and submit to the dominion of an absolute government, that will embrace all America in one chain of despotism; or whether they will with virtuous indignation, spurn at the shackles prepared for them, and confirm their liberties by a conduct becoming freemen.”
Like these men, I too want to avoid becoming “the unwilling instruments of tyranny” and I want to thank you and these men for “conduct becoming freemen.”
Keep up the good work and don’t let your establishment Rep., whether Republican or Democrat, rivet any shackles around your ankles.
Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Texas) said Sunday that he will challenge John Boehner (R-Ohio) as Speaker in the new Congress.
“I’m putting my name out there today to be another candidate for Speaker,” Gohmert said on “Fox and Friends.” Gohmert said that after “years of broken promises, it’s time for a change.”
This is important for all Americans and especially for Republicans.
Establishment Republicans in the House have become too enamored with the Big Red “R” and the big money their offices control. They have lost sight of their founding principles. They have forgotten what limited government and free-enterprise look like.
Margaret Thatcher, in her first speech to the Conservative Party Conference (circa, 1975) described the conservative vision, “A man’s right to work as he will. To spend what he earns. To own property. To have the state as a servant and not as a master. These are the British inheritance.”
These are uniquely American traits and we successfully spread these ideas to the rest of the world. In fact, Thatcher’s Great Britain inherited them from America.
These were the originating ideals of America but, today, we are at a tipping point.
Just six years ago Obama claimed that conservatives, “get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
In the same way, although America’s founders exhibited a profound respect for Christian principles and the moral relevance discovered through Biblical doctrine, then Senator Obama voiced, “we are no longer a Christian nation.”
Our Republican ideals are not composed of wacko, fruit-cake, right-wing blather. Our ideals are the true ideals firmly rooted in the the American Tradition.
They are the ideals of hard-working farmers, ranchers, business men and women who, like myself, have a natural love for freedom and liberty. These ideals represent what we, as conservatives want to preserve – our constitution and therefore, our nation.
Our conservatism is, simply, the best and most accurate assessment of the real world – the world where you and I live. We must fight to stop progressives, compromisers, or moderates, from weaving false ideas into our kid’s textbooks and the vocabulary of the nightly news.
The truth is, we don’t cling to our Bibles or guns because we’re bitter. Rather, we cling to things that are true. This is our deepest conviction and stems out of a deep affection strengthened by evidence and rational assessment.
The objectivist Ayn Rand observed, “There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.”
Do you see her point? The middle of the road is thought of as morally superior, yet, because the middle of the road is not based any principle at hand, it must be based on caprice, or whim. If it were based on some higher principle, what would that higher principle look like?
What’s wrong with these principles, and what we lose if we forget what really matters? Each of these examples might seem legitimate but what are they based upon? What will be our foundation for determining the future direction of our nation’s policies?
America exists because of a calling, “to secure the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our posterity,” not because of feel-good platitudes.
Ronald Reagan, as one of the world’s most profound conservative communicators (and a close friend of Margaret Thatcher) described our American Ideals in his speech entitled, Our Noble Vision: An Opportunity for All, given March 2, 1984:
An opportunity society awaits us. We need only believe in ourselves and give men and women of faith, courage, and vision the freedom to build it. Let others run down America and seek to punish success. Let them call you greedy for not wanting government to take more and more of your earnings. Let them defend their tombstone society of wage and price guidelines, mandatory quotas, tax increases, planned shortages, and shared sacrifices.
We want no part of that mess, thank you very much. We will encourage all Americans — men and women, young and old, individuals of every race, creed, and color — to succeed and be healthy, happy, and whole. This is our goal. We see America not falling behind, but moving ahead; our citizens not fearful and divided, but confident and united by shared values of faith, family, work, neighborhood, peace and freedom.
It’s high-time that voters brought these uniquely conservative, thoughtful and prudent American ideals to the forefront of our own local communities.
Do not let these traditions of Liberty become dusty, old and irrelevant. Tell your House member to vote for the principled conservative, Rep. Gohmert, or pack up and get ready to come home early – for good this time!
Tell Your Representative to Replace John Boehner HERE!
The idea of State Rights has long been neglected by our representatives in Congress and this neglect has allowed the federal government to grow like a malignant tumor. In the anti-Federalist paper, Brutus XII, we read, “that this constitution,… will not be a compact entered into by states,… but an agreement of the people of the United States, as one great body politic,… The courts therefore will establish it as a rule in explaining… as will best tend to perfect the union or take from the state governments every power of either making or executing laws.”
Brutus’ pamphlet, published on February 07, 1788, was an accurate projection and his fears have become reality in our lifetimes.
Our republican government refers to two things:
James Madison said that “we may define a republic to be … a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices…, for a limited period…” This is why we see Greg Walden thrashing so fiercely for the status quo — he enjoys his long tenure in D.C., something our founders would not have imagined.
James Madison also cleared the air with regard to democratic rule, stating, “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.” Fisher Ames added, “The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty.”
Today, the federal government has gorged itself on power and is wielding that power indiscriminately. The only solution strong enough comes from the U.S. Constitution. Our founding fathers had a better understanding of natural law than we do, despite our technological modernity.
Our nation’s framers understood and agreed with Lord Acton’s observation that, “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Thomas Jefferson noted that good government is properly effected through the dispersion of power not through the concentration of power.
Therefore, the first line of defense for maintaining “free and independent states” comes from the states themselves. Each state has a unique population demographic and natural resources, with differing interests and perspectives regarding program priorities. The federal government should not be entangled in these local interests. In the 2nd District we experience this continually: the Feds have successfully intruded into what should be local resource management affairs. The Federal government can then use the power of the purse (AKA, the printing press) to buy allegiance to their own bureaucratic and administrative interests.
For the past 100 years we have been slowly losing our rights. We have allowed the federal bureaucracy to discount and absorb our state’s specific interests. As a result, we hardly know how to weigh these issues from our state’s perspective.
My question is, why is returning to state-chosen, state-focused Senators so scary?
Over-arching federal control has stolen the dialog and removed our focus from our local community and our local control. Greg Walden likes the status quo. He knows that I, as one man, cannot change the 17th Amendment and that this is a conversation about philosophy and ideas. However, this discussion scares Rep. Walden because it is an argument for state leadership and power instead of an impenetrable regulatory authority housed 3,000 miles away. Your current Representative is afraid to even discuss the potential changes which might diminish his own personal power.
Earlier this year Lawrence W. Reed commented on the progressive nature of the anachronisms that Greg Walden fully endorses:
“Without the 16th and 17th Amendments and the Federal Reserve, it’s inconceivable that the federal government could have grown from less than five percent of GDP in 1913 to nearly 25 percent in 2013. Were it not for those three gremlins, how many fewer trillions might our unconscionable national debt be? The toll on our liberties is also incalculable but surely considerable.”
We all know that one of the main functions of the Federal government is to insure our security and aid in the naturalization of new immigrants. Neither of these items are being upheld by our current government. The reforms passed by President Ronald Reagan back in 1986 are not being enforced. Why should we pass new laws when the old ones are not being upheld?
We must secure our borders. That must be the first order of business. Instead, Speaker John Boehner (a close political ally of my opponent) told supporters that he is “hell-bent” on getting comprehensive immigration reform (i.e. amnesty) passed this year. My opponent, Congressman Walden, told fellow Republicans that they should concentrate on immigration (amnesty) “after the primaries are over”.
Rep. Walden has been endorsed by the Oregon Farm Bureau and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, both of which are very vocally pro-amnesty. Republicans in the House have lost their way on this issue. Most Americans want steady jobs for Americans before worrying about illegal aliens. We understand the need for border security and enforced immigration laws.
Republicans in the House are more concerned with looking good on NBC than they are with the wishes of hard-working Americans, and this has got to stop. Amnesty is bad policy for America and I am dedicated to securing our border, enforcing current law and opening up opportunity for legal immigrants.
Oregonians for Immigration Reform, Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC), NumbersUSA and others have all noted my strong stance on immigration issues and my opponent’s weakness. The time is now and the choice is ours – vote for legal immigration and an end to political gamesmanship.
My opponent recently released a letter to the FDA, declaring that their new rules on brewers and ranchers will hurt Oregonian businesses.
He’s absolutely right – but my question is, why has he been funding the FDA with printed money from Washington, and then writing flimsy letters against it?
Wouldn’t the logical solution be to cut off the funding for unConstitutional entities like the FDA and EPA? Why is our Congressman of 16 years so scared to take these Federal behemoths on?
My stance is much different than Congressman Walden’s. I think that the states should be in charge of their own departments, not throttled by Federal bureaucracy. Ranching and brewing are both critical industries to Oregon and we know how to support them, govern them and help them succeed in our neighborhoods and communities.
I’m running for Congress because I think that we have spent too long contenting ourselves with thrashing at the branches of bureaucracy. Establishment Republicans hide behind wimpy letters and empty statements, all the while voting for deficit spending and bigger government, rather than true, Constitutional change.
We all know, in our heart of hearts, that the current state of Federal bureaucracy is wrong. We are taxed on every activity, regulated at every turn and business is discouraged at almost every level (unless, of course, you know someone high-up in politics!). Let’s stop being satisfied with futile rhetoric and empty votes – it’s time to stand up for our freedoms in real, meaningful ways and begin to take our liberties back by dismantling the Federal machine.
“O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America! America!
God shed His grace on thee…”
We all know the words, and we all love the sentiment in this old folk song. Our kids and grandkids probably sing this song in school plays, much as we did at their age. But even as we sing these cherished words, the beauty they represent is slipping away.
Ludwig von Mises, in his preface to Bureaucracy, writes: ”The main issue in present-day social and political conflicts is whether or not man should give away freedom, private initiative, and individual responsibility and surrender to the guardianship of a gigantic apparatus of compulsion and coercion, the socialist state. Should authoritarian totalitarianism be substituted for individualism and democracy?”
This is a searching question, and one we’ve all answered in our own hearts and on our own land with a resounding “no!”. The trouble is, do the proponents of the socialist state listen, and if they don’t, what is our recourse as liberty-loving people of the wide-open ranges?
Every lover of the west should be worried about the unelected bureaucracies driving the Endangered Species Act, the EPA, foolish natural resource policy, restriction of federal land use and endless regulation on hard-working land-owners and businessmen. But even more so, we should be concerned about the seemingly endless stream of borrowed and printed money that funds these unconstitutional hierarchies.
Any businessman or woman knows that money is a driver of action. Therefore, if we cut off the money, we can rein in rampant growth of bureaucracies like the EPA. With an endless stream of printed money and a false sense of security, faraway departments and special interests get to force their will on rural communities and individuals. They can buy media time, sway public opinion and use their money to falsely manipulate the marketplace.
If we elect principled individuals to Congress, who will serve their Constitutionally-mandated duty of controlling the purse and voting against frivolous spending, we can start to beat back these bureaucracies and restore our freedom as agriculturalists.
Congress needs to be held accountable. It’s not enough to blame the President, blame the media or blame our culture – these are all legitimate scapegoats, but they also serve the convenient purpose of absolving us from responsibility when something goes wrong. Congress must be re-elected every two years, and any Congressperson who has not stood firm on his or her principles and the causes we support needs to be challenged in the primaries, and must be rebuked on these votes.
Our government is a democratic republic, intended to represent the people and protect our God-given rights. We have excused well-meaning but ineffectual politicians for long enough, and it’s time to make 2014 the year of fiscal responsibility and free principles. The future of our farms, ranches and children’s agricultural future depends on our ability to require our representatives to truly represent us.
The time to start is now — the future of America the beautiful, with our spacious skies and amber waves of grain — rely on our resolve.
When so-called public servants suggest the increase of Federal land management, it’s usually sold to us as a great resource for our communities. We’re told that we’ll get wide open spaces to hunt, fish, hike, access with OHVs and use for countless other pursuits.
Unfortunately, all too often, once the government gets control of our land, it becomes closed to one or more of these activities. They close forest roads under the guise of “environmental protection”, ignoring the fact that keeping these roads clear aids firefighters in the summer fire season. The bureaucrats insist that they know better than we do how to enjoy our wild places, and so they padlock the woods and force us out of land that should rightfully belong to the local community.
More and more forests in Oregon are being closed to OHV traffic, and our current Congressman seems content with making empty statements and meaningless votes. For those of us who love our open places, this is a serious issue, one that is worth fighting for. We will not be content with empty rhetoric – if we aren’t willing to stand up, our kids will never know the freedom of Oregon’s mountains and forests.
As John George of Forest Access for All recently stated in a petition letter: “Further restrictions to open access of our public lands is not acceptable to the general population of Eastern Oregon and is not an acceptable form of land management for our public lands. OHV access has been a primary means of accessing our public lands for the last 100 plus years and is tied directly to the traditions and cultures of our communities…
…Further restrictions in OHV access through a closed forest ‘no cross country travel’ policy severally limits handicapped and elderly citizens’ ability to access currently accessible lands and disallows them from attaining goods and services they have historically utilized for generations. Open OHV access is key to our mining, livestock, timber and sustenance use of these mountains, any further restriction of this access mode puts our already tenuous existence on a continued downward trend. Simple loop trails are acceptable for some user groups and we support the recognition and development of those opportunities for groups, but those systems do not fully meet out the needs of all OHV users on public lands, and should not be looked at as a mitigation opportunity or strategy to address other OHV user concerns.”
The arrogance and shocking lack of concern toward the lifestyles of rural Oregonians is unjust and immoral. Our local economies suffer from these restrictions and our local governments lose tax revenue when our forests are given over the Federal government and padlocked. Our culture is in jeopardy and our freedoms are being constricted every day. I’m proud to stand with the hunters, OHV users, trappers, fishermen and outdoorsmen who are saying that enough is enough. Let’s take back our lands and manage them with integrity, consistency and the Constitution in mind.