Wonks and Derivative Issues

Jeffrey Tucker, in an article published at mises.org, introduced a dichotomous classification of political philosophies.  He divided those who are politically active into two camps: geeks and wonks.

...Political wonks are fascinated by process. They love the game. They get as much satisfaction from observing as changing. They want to be players above all else. Ideals bore them. History is mere data. Intellectuals seem irrelevant. What matters to the wonk are the hard realities of the ongoing political struggle. They defer to title and rank. They thrive on meetings, small victories, administrative details, and gossip about these matters. Knowing who is who and what is what is the very pith of life.

There are political wonks and policy wonks. They exist on all levels of society. They appear to be running things, because their aim is to control the levers of power in just the right and strategic way, which means in a way that benefits the other wonks of their tribe. Geographically, life begins and ends in the beltway. They thrive on keeping information private and cartelizing their class. Their newspaper is the Washington Post, which they consider to be the insider report.

In contrast to this are the policy geeks. They are no less fascinated by detail but are drawn to ideals. Observation alone bores them. They are drawn to the prospect of change. They don't want to be players as such; they question the very rules of the game and want to change them. They are happy to make a difference in the ideological infrastructure, whether big or small. They tend to work alone and totally disregard caste distinctions. They are interested not in the surface area but what's underneath, not the veneer but the wood. In software terms, they are forever looking forward to the next build. They are risk takers, so they prefer to debug after the system is live....

I rather enjoyed Mr. Tucker's article and, of course, find myself firmly in the camp of political geek.  I despise the wonk outlook, which is probably why I struggle to watch television during election season.  They are consumed with what I consider derivative issues - ones that are related to secondary matters not fundamental principles.  The wonks are chattering:

• Who prepped Obama for the first debate (if anyone)?  Maybe his poor showing was due to the altitude.  
• How is the race shaping up in the battleground states?
• How was Obama's performance in the second debate?  Let's fact check the tid bits - and oh - here are the top 10 sound bites. 
• How about a comparison of the candidate's pensions and some sexual innuendo? 
• For the love of God, can someone please tell me where Obama is going to hold his election night rally?!

The most egregious manifestation of the wonk obsession with derived issues is the person who votes dependent on whether or not a candidate is "electable" (most often in reference to a third party candidate like Gary Johnson or a primary election long-shot like Ron Paul).  How circular is that?  Prepare to have your mind blown: perhaps these candidates would be more electable if more people voted their principles and fewer watched the polls. 

It's not just that I want to hear a higher percentage of principled debate (Is it right to tax the rich more than the poor? When and how should we deploy armies overseas? What is the government's role in child rearing? etc.).  I want to her only these things.  Tell us the principles of the candidates, what there goals are in office, how they view the role of the state, then let's skip to celebrity DUIs and let the chads fall where they may. 

Append "By Force"

I am usually more for breaking laws than making them, but I just had one of those there-ought-to-be-a-law moments that I imagine liberals and conservative have daily.  My law would be that every time someone who is either running for or executing some government office speaks to the public and gives a plan for how they are going to "help" us, they must append the words "by force" to their statement.

Example:  We're going to invest in Green Energy - by force.  We're going to provide health insurance to every American citizen - by force.

This may seem cumbersome, but in my opinion it is the best way to ensure that the motives and methods of the government remain in clear view of the general populous.  Just imagine how poorly FDR's Second Bill of Rights would have been received if this law was in place.  Hell, the State of the Union Address might even be bearable were this law in effect.

I think most people apply the old adage about sausage to government - it's best not to think about how it is made.  But, if we are to be consistent moral agents, we must not ignore the dirty side of governance lest we give our sanction to the imposition of force on others.  What made the Solyndra scandal so egregious was not that the president and his cronies picked a loser, it was the fact that they took money from the taxpayers - by force - and propped up a pet company in a politically sexy business.

Call your congressmen; let's make it happen!

Ron Paul - The Last and Only Hope for Liberty?

You might be able to guess from my previous posts that I am a pretty ardent supporter of Ron Paul.  But I have heard some of my fellow supporters recently say that Dr. Paul is our last and only hope for liberty in the States.  I sincerely hope that anyone who says this means it as hyperbole to gin up additional support from those who are on the fence or otherwise inactive.  This is something I can get behind, but actually believing that statement is dangerous in several ways.

First, it rings of defeatism and indicates to our intellectual opponents that this is the final countdown.  It tells them that if Ron doesn't win we will put back our foil hats and slink back to our bunkers.  Trust me my friends, if you think that liberty's corner is a lonely place now, wait until its "last and only hope" has failed.  The headlines will read that the last stand for our "out-dated" ideas has come and gone.  We will be patronized and demoralized.  The message should be not that that Ron Paul is the last hope but the first hope for liberty in the States in a long, long time.

Second, it also indicates to our fellow travelers that this is the final countdown.  It tells them that win or loose, come November they have no recourse but to return to life as normal.  Imagine if he comes in a close second or a distant third.  The Summer Bloggers and the Sunshine Tweeters will in this crisis change their profiles or hang up their keyboards altogether.  What shall we expect of those with no hope?

Finally, these hyperbolic statements imply a movement based upon a man, not upon ideas.  I have heard Ron say that it is impossible to stop an idea whose time has come, and I believe he is right.  But it is always possible for a single man to be stopped.  Those of us who advocate for liberty should support Ron Paul, but we should be careful to understand that Ron Paul is currently our preeminent messenger, not the message itself.  Our support must not stop at this campaign.  We must get involved in local and state government.  It won't be enough to have a president on our side; we need congressmen, governors, mayors, staffers and school board members willing to bind the hands of the state.  When we accomplish this, it will still not be enough.  After all, remember that freedom already won.  It just didn't go on winning because the ambitions of those who wanted power outstripped that of those who didn't.  Our intellectual battle will go on, even in the lulls between campaigns.  

People who join us and people who fight against us need to understand that we are many; that we are principled and that we will stay for the long haul.