The Other 10 Percent

Finally, Glenn Beck is being consistent!

I will accept, or at least have some respect for, any philosophy or set of beliefs so long as it is consistent. Most philosophies fail this simple test. Glenn Beck has excelled at failing this simple standard. But no longer!

In defending his statement that 10% of Muslims are terrorists, Beck states that 10% of people will believe anything. Ten percent of people don't believe in the moon landing, 10% of people are birthers, truthers, what have you. Basically 10% of people are crazies.

Separately, in explaining why his audience will usher in a bright future, Beck has estimated his audience at 30 million people:

We have 30 million people in our footprint. 30 million people [if you count Beck's combined TV, radio, book and event audience this is not an unreasonable number]. That’s ten percent of the population. Here’s the good news. This ten percent is going to be the shelter for the other ninety percent. This ten percent will be the leaders of tomorrow…this is the group, this ten percent will be the ones when all hell goes to hand-basket and everyone on the left and the right are yelling and arguing and trying to pull you into camps…maybe literally. You’re going to say…don’t go, everything’s fine, don’t worry we can take care of eachother. We’re Americans, we’re better than this. [Emphasis added]

 So there we have it:

1. 10% of people will believe anything
2. Beck's audience is 10% of the people

The conclusion is obvious

The Concert of Europe

The EU certainly has many things said of it, some going as far as to say that it is repeating the Tower of Babel . Today, however, I read a historical parallel I have never seen before: that the EU is in fact a mirror of the Congress of Vienna. Of course, the Congress of Vienna, it makes perfect sense. Think about it:

Who headed the Congress? von Metternich

Who heads the EU? Van Rompuy

Eerily similar isn't it? The similarities are endless! As the linked comparisson states:

The parallel between 1815 and 1945 is interesting as both years marked the defeat of a tyrant whose armies had totally destroyed the societies and countries of Europe, rewriting laws, relationships, and creating a new society.

OK, not sure that Napoleon and Hitler really form a fair comparison; seems like Hitler was somewhat of the antithesis of the Napoleonic Code, but I can see some parallel. What else?

The goal of the Congress of Vienna was the complete removal of any trace of Napoleon’s activities – putting Europe back to where it was before the French revolution. Not only were the Germans defeated in 1945 but the Allies reestablished all the old boundaries and governments. It took many years before the event that we would consider equivalent to the Congress of Vienna occurred. The Treaty of Rome created the Common Market in 1956 to make it impossible for another war to occur in Western Europe. Both major treaties were reactionary events as they put things back to where they were before the periods of war and both were extremely successful for a long time. 

Um, no.

Yes, the Congress of Vienna sought to remove all traces of Napoleon, and turn back the clock of Europe. The Congress sought to, and did, somewhat arbitrarily redraw the map of Europe, reestablishing separate and feuding states. This is very much a reactionary thing. Von Metternich aimed at establishing a balance of power in Europe among different nation.

By contrast, the EU was the opposite of reactionary. The Common Market reduced the barriers between countries. The EU has sought to lessen the effect of national borders, increasing the mobility of people and property. Rather than establishing a balancing of power, the EU seeks to unite powers. In essence, the EU is the antithesis of the Congress of Vienna. Rather than seeking to divide up Europe, the EU is established to unify it. Yes, the form of that unification is up for debate (a super state, a federation, a liberalized common market, etc.) but it is a unification nonetheless. The Treaty of Rome and the EU in general is not seeking to "put things back where they were before the period of war". The European Idea is the to move things away from the way they were, the counter to the reactionary Congress.

Just because both the Congress of Vienna and the Treaties of Rome, Maastricht, and Lisbon involved the countries of Europe getting together to accomplish something does not mean that they are parallels. If anything, the goals of the EU are much more in line with the views of Napoleon than von Metternich, but that might not be the best pro-EU argument...       

The European Diktat

Barry Eichengreen has an excellent article about the Irish bailout, comparing it to German reparations after WWI. I would like to expand on this point with further analogy to the post-WWI world.

The main issue for Ireland is that it has too much debt (remember, debt is a practical issue, not a moral one) and even with reasonable growth it will not be able to handle this debt burden. Now, when a borrower borrows more he can handle, he should suffer for that, so that he and other borrowers know that you can't borrow too much. When a lender lends imprudently, he should suffer for that, so that he and other lenders learn you can't lend imprudently.  The Irish bailout, however, seeks to impose costs only on the Irish people (the borrowers) while leaving the lenders (bondholders) untouched. Europe is telling Ireland that it must pay a heavy debt.  This is unreasonable. This is the European diktat.

A much more sensible solution, as mentioned in the linked article,  is for the Irish debt to be written down, while Ireland also imposes fiscal austerity. This way the burden on Ireland is reduced, but both borrower and lender still pay a cost. Not only that, as it currently stands, the Irish have no incentive to improve their situation and pay back the debt, as I will explain.

First, however, let's compare this situation with the post-WWI world. The Allied nations had borrowed immensely from the US to pay for the war. At the end of the war the Allied nations sought to link reparations from Germany to the war debts they had with the US, but the US refused to write down the debts, which was part of the reasons reparations on Germany were so high. On the matter of reducing war debts Calvin Coolidge famously said "They hired the money didn't they?" These war debts and reparations were a terrible burden on post war Europe. Still, the debtor nations sought to have the war debts reduced.

In 1923 Britain, in a desire to be as responsible as it could, accepted a deal with the US to settle the debts at 80 cents on the dollar. The French waited longer and eventually settled in 1926 at 40 cents on the dollar (ratifying the settlement even later in 1929). Italy also waited and settled the debts at 24 cents on the dollar. [Source: Lords of Finance] The takeaway here should be twofold: that an overly burdensome debt will likely eventually be written down, and that the longer you wait the greater the chance of a lower write down.

At the time J. M Keynes encouraged Britain to wait longer for a better deal "in order to give them [the Americans] time to discover that they are just as completely at our mercy as we are at France’s and France at Germany’s. It is the debtor who has the last word in these cases."

Keynes was exactly right on this. It is better to write down a debt and receive a part of it then have the debtor  default and realize even less. With too much debt, high unemployment, ands severe austerity and tax hikes, what incentive do the Irish have to work harder and pay back the debt? They would be better off making the situation worse and forcing either a default or a write down of the debt. That is, they have an incentive to be disruptive, or even destructive. Ireland may well go for Katastrophenpolitk, much as Germany did with reparations. As the situation gets worse in Ireland, it will fuel things getting worse in the EU, which will encourage the EU to move to write down debts, which would benefit Ireland.

This is nothing new, it is the classic debt overhang problem. If the economy in Ireland grows then it is not the Irish people who will benefit, since so much will go to pay off the debt. The Irish people will have to deal with lower wages, higher taxes, and still have to make the debt payments. The benefits accrue to the bondholders and not the "equity holders"--the citizens of Ireland. So you would expect the equity holders to "under invest"--work less. Better for the Irish people to be disruptive, worsen the situation, and force the EU to write down debts. This is the essence of Katastophenpolitk.

But this is a terrible outcome for everyone, worse still because as we saw with Britain, France, and Italy, its likely that the debt will be written down in the end anyway. On the way, however, we will have a languishing Irish economy, as well as other European economies. We will have growing resentment towards the EU, growing nationalistic feelings, growing conflict. Katastrophenpolitik is a form of brinkmanship: pushing the situation to the verge of disaster in order to gain an advantage. Ireland is being overburdened with debt, if the situation get worse in Europe then this debt will be reduced, so let's make things worse! Is this the strategy we want for Europe?

No!

Better for the debts to be written down now, as reasonably as possible, without having to go through the damage to European unity. It seems overwhelmingly likely that the debts will be written down anyway, so why not do this sensibly? It is alright to risk the European Idea for something, but to ruin it for nothing?

Vicious Virtues

Writing in Poor Richard's Almanack, Ben Franklin declared "Rather go to bed supperless than rise in debt."

What a wonderful representation of what are often called the  "Victorian virtues" (though the Almanack was printed prior to the reign of Queen Victoria). Debt is morally repulsive, not only to be personally avoided, but is a sin to pass on to one's children.If we could only return to this ideal, the future, the character, and the dignity of America would be restored.

The only problem with this, however, is that it's nonsense. There is nothing morally odious about debt in and of itself, or about borrowing for the future.

Consider Ben Franklin's aphorism. Which seems better: to go to bed hungry and wake up weak and unable to work as well, or to borrow against tomorrow's income so that you can eat and wake up strong enough to work? Suppose that if you eat one loaf of bread you can work enough to earn two loaves of bread and that right now you are hungry and have no bread. What is the moral dilemma about borrowing enough money to buy one loaf of bread, eating it, and then working enough to earn two loaves and paying back the debt? If debt is morally wrong then you shouldn't borrow even if you can pay it back. So it must be nonsense that debt is morally wrong in and of itself.

Now consider a working parent who has a child. This parent currently has a business which produces $100 a year worth of income, and he will pass on this business to his child next year. Now this father has the opportunity to invest $200 in improving his business and once he does the business will produce $200 a year worth of income. This parent doesn't have the money but can borrow it and has to repay the loan over 2 years, paying half each year. This means that the second payment will be made by his child, and so he is borrowing from his kid. Let's compare taking the loan and not taking the loan:

Year:                               1          2          3        4   ...
Income without loan:     $100    $100   $100   $100 ...
Income with loan:         $100*   $100*    $200   $200 ...
*$200 income produced - $100 loan repayment =$100 income

So in year 2 when the child takes over the business he is no worse off than had the father not taken the loan out, but every year thereafter he is better off. Clearly the parent should take out the loan, even though the child has to pay some of it back, because the loan is used to make the child richer. But if it morally wrong to borrow from our kids, from the future, then this parent should not borrow and not make his child richer. Is that virtue?

It should be clear that there is nothing morally wrong about debt or borrowing from the future. The issue is whether the debt is being used toward something productive (earning more bread, making your child richer). It's not a moral question, its a practical one. 

In truth, the fact that we have borrowing and debt is a sign of virtue: people are willing to lend others the resources necessary to improve. To be morally against debt is to tell people that even if they could do better, it is better that they don't. "Yes, you could borrow some food today and pay it back tomorrow, but you'd be a better person if you didn't." Is this virtuous?

Yet this is the basis on which we are told by some that governments shouldn't borrow, because it is morally wrong. It is perfectly reasonable to argue that governments shouldn't borrow money because they don't put them to productive purposes, that they will borrow $100 and only produce $90. That's fine point to make and one I think is very right. But that means the issues isn't the morality of the debt but the productivity of it.

The argument should be about what the government does with money it borrows, not whether or not it is moral for it to borrow. If the argument becomes "debt is morally wrong" then we have turned virtue into something vicious. We have consigned people to whatever their present circumstances are and nothing more.

Constituting God

Slogging through Glenn Beck's book Broke I have finally reached the chapter I knew would be there. Yes, I have finally reached the part where Glenn Beck talks about the need for a religious revival in America. This conclusion stems, oh so rationally, from the fact (FACT!) that our rights comes from God.

That's part of the Constitution you know.

Not only that, it should be obvious that our rights come from God. This much should be evident from the long history of the bible.

Who can forget wise Prime Minister David?
Or the republican reign of President Solomon?
But this is a Judeo-Christian land, so let us not forget the more gentile persuasion, such as Jesus's oft quoted remark "Render unto the Premier that is which is the Premier's, and render unto God that which is God's"

Oh but the history of religion is the very history of consent of the governed!

So it is no wonder that our rights, as Americans, come from God. Well, it was some wonder to me. See, I always thoughts our rights come from the Constitution. That if rights were given in that document, or specifically forbidden in that document, then that is the rights we do and do not have.

So for example in 1920 when the 19th Amendment was ratified, that gave women the right to vote. This is a right they did not previously had, but after this amendment did. Oh how fortuitous it is that on that date God changed his mind about that right!

Or in 1919 when the 18th Amendment was ratified, Americans no longer had the right to drink intoxicating liquors. I guess God decided to take that right away.

No, God did not decided to grant one right and take away another. Men decided what rights they had under a society of their organization. Under the Constitution people have the ability to decided what rights we have as citizens. If today three fourths of the states decided that we have the right to something, then we would have that right. If today three fourths of the states decided that we did not have the right to something, then we would not have that right.

That is the basic meaning not only of a Constitution, but of a free organization of people. That it is they, and they alone, that can decided what they do and do not have the right to.

Suppose today that God were to declare that "Now therefore hearken unto their voice; howbeit thou shalt earnestly forewarn them, and shalt declare unto them the manner of the king that shall reign over them." (1 Samuel 9)

Would that be acceptable? After all, if our rights come from God, then they are his to take away. I reckon this would, and should, be unacceptable to us.

I plan a post more focused on the relationship between God, man, and freedom, but let me just end this on a quote I have always cared for but can't recall where I first heard it:

"God did not ask us if we wanted to live, why then should he be allowed tell us how to live?"

Being a Mensch

Representative Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) has issued a challenge to followers of history and monetary policy:

"There is nothing more insidious that a government can do to its people than to debase its currency," Ryan said."Name me a nation in history that has prospered by devaluing its currency."

Now, this challenge has been taken on by economists using several examples. But I wanted to help Representative Ryan with a more recent example, so as to give him more contemporary evidence.

Besides, this example is a nation that is near and dear to my heart: Israel.

During the recent financial crisis, Stanley Fischer, head of the Bank of Israel (a mensch if there ever was one) responded to the faltering Israeli economy by engaging in currency devaluation. Specifically, Fischer sold Israeli Shekels and bought US Dollars, to the tune of 10% of Israeli GDP.

That is, the Bank of Israel (unlike the Federal Reserve) engaged in direct devaluation of it's money, the very thing Representative Ryan says has never been successful. So how did Israel turn out?

Israel grew at 4.7% in the second quarter of 2010
Inflation was at 1.8%
Unemployment dropped to 6.2%
Israel was admitted into the OECD
Fischer was selected central bank governor of the year by Euromoney magazine
(Source: http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=190878)

Add to this the fact that Israel was ranked as "the most durable in the face of the crises" in 2010 by the IMD's World Competitiveness Ranking which also ranked Israel at 17th out of 58 of the worlds most economically developed countries, rising 7 ranks from 2009. The Bank of Israel also received high marks.

There you are. A nation that pursued a direct policy of devaluing its currency and prospered.

Does that clear things up Mr. Ryan?

Pravda Reports Americans Evenly Divided on Healthcare Reform

Liberal bastion, the Wall Street Journal, attempts to distort The Truth with facts.

The Truth is that Washington jammed healthcare down America's throat, and that Americans reject it. The Truth is that voters have sent a clear message that an overwhelming majority of Americans want to be rid of Obamacare.

And here comes the WSJ to muddy this up with such crude things as exit polls, and numbers. From today's WSJ (page A8):

Congress and the health care law

Repeal it           48%

Expand it         31% 

Leave it as is    16%

So Leave it as is or expand it adds up to 47% vs 48% for repeal. So Americans would seem to be evenly divided on this issue. But that would mean that it isn't antithetical to all things American. That would mean that it wasn't just jammed down America's throat.

And that's just not The Truth.

American-Isolationism

The term in the title of this post has a hyphen for a reason, which is that Americans have a particular brand of isolationism. I have a post planned about Warren Harding and  Calvin Coolidge, and as their presidency deals with the inter-war period you read a lot about America's isolationism. Wilson dragged Americans into WWI despite it being an isolationist country, after WWI America wished to return to its isolationism, America was reluctant to join WWII because it is isolationist, etc. The problem with this is that it is pretty false.

Americans aren't isolationists, they're American-Isolationists, which is another instance of Americans putting their own brand on things. Isolationism means non-interference or non-intervention in the affairs of other nations, essentially keeping to yourself. American-Isolationism means, roughly, don't intervene or interfere beyond an ocean. If you are not beyond an ocean, however, then Americans have no problem projecting themselves into other countries.

In 1812 the United States, under James Madison (one of those "Founders" you have doubtless heard about), declared war on the British Empire, with specific aims at British controlled Canada.

James Madison

While there were several reasons for the war, such as trade restriction, an important part of the war was US expansionist interests and an idea that the US could takeover Canada. Now, this takeover of Canada was not specifically with the goal of annexing Canada into the US, although some had that interest, but rather as a method to rid the continent of the British. As former President Thomas Jefferson said at the time:

The acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching, and will give us the experience for the attack on Halifax, the next and final expulsion of England from the American continent.

With Jefferson in mind we also have the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, showing that the US was neither isolationist to the west or the north. In fact, during and after the Presidential election in 1844 of James K. Polk, the expansion west and north combined in the issue of the annexation of the Oregon territories. The issue wasn't just should the US expand further west, but just how far north it should stake it's claim, taking land from the British. This led to the creation of the famous slogan "Fifty-four forty or fight", referring the the longitudinal demands of some US policy makers.

The Disputed Territories Leading to the Famous "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight"

Nor was the US isolationist towards the south. Starting with the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, the US declared that the American continents (north and south) were in its sphere of influence. The Atlantic and Pacific oceans represented a barrier, within which America felt it was its right to intervene. Beyond those oceans, however, Americans wished to be non-interventionist.

As an example of the intervention to the south, consider William Walker in the 1850s. In 1855 William, with about 60 men, sailed from San Francisco to Nicaragua and took it over. This was called filibustering, when non-governmental military expeditions simply went into foreign countries. After talking over, Walker originally ruled through a puppet but in 1856 declared himself President of Nicaragua. Walkers regime was considered legitimate by the US under President Franklin Pierce.

William Walker, filibuster  

(Interesting trivia: in order to gain support from southern Americans, Walker reintroduced slavery to Nicaragua, revoking the emancipation of 1824.)

But when it came to things like WWI and WWII and involvement in Europe in general, there was greater reluctance, which is why I said that a better description of American policy is really that its alright to mess around, just not as far as an ocean away.

So when reading about the US and seeing descriptions about Americans being isolationists, just remember that in 1855 a guy and some of his friends walked into a Central American country and just took it over. And that this was a thing people did. Because Americans aren't isolationists, they're American-Isolationist, which is really more like aquaphobic.    

Villainy Without Bounds

I speak of course of Woodrow Wilson.

Glenn Beck's new book Broke was released this week, and as should be expected it is filled with such, let us say, useful history. And no history from Glenn Beck is complete without sufficient talk of Woodrow Wilson, who was the scourge of the Earth and all things beloved by God. 

Point in case, in Chapter 5, Beck informs:

Wilson’s desire to control got so creepy that at one point he decided to create a “new standard of manhood” for American soldiers. The result was a “Commission on Training Camp Activities” that regulated everything from approved soldier recreation to sexual practices, promising “protection and stimulation of its mental, moral and physical manhood. (p. 54)

Already Wilson's evil should be evident. How dare the government regulate a soldier's recreation? The last thing I want is for the government to tell soldiers what to do and how to behave.

But it gets so much worse. Just how did Wilson effectuate this "creepy" desire for control? To find out I went to the War Department's Commission on Training Camp Activities report, preparing myself for the horror I was about to read:

To the Young Men's Christian Association and the Knights of Columbus, for instance, the Commission has looked to supply a large share of the club life and entertainment inside its training camps. To the American Library Association it has instinctively turned for an adequate supply of books and reading facilities for the troops. To organize the social and recreational life of the communities adjacent to the training camps the Commission enlisted the services of the Playground and Recreation Association of America, which has placed representatives in over one hundred such communities and has harnessed the lodges, churches, clubs, and other local groups and organizations with the men in the camps. (p. 4-5)  

Thats right. Wilson's aims were so "creepy" that he brought in the YMCA. Wilson's desires were so perverse that he enlisted the help of such nefarious organizations as the Library Association. What more needs to be said?

So take heed of this lesson that Glenn Beck has taught us about villainy without bounds

Jewish Pride

Just a quick post to say that, despite the misgivings I have about religion in general, it is good to know that the one I have been born a part of can produce great pride in me:

Where In the Constitution Do You Find the Right to...?

I had a different post in mind, but after seeing this video I felt the need to express some frustration.

A common refrain heard from tea-party types is "Where in the Constitution do you find the right to [enter policy issue here]?", most recently health care but not limited to that. Of course, if someone actually tries to provide an answer to that question, they are told that it's only their interpretation of the Constitution, that's not what it actually means, and that in fact the government has no right to that policy issue. (Can I just say health care from now on?) But this is ridiculous. This question could be asked, without acceptable answer, about almost anything the government has done. Off the top of my head:

-Where in the Constitution do you find the right to form a national bank? (Thomas Jefferson and Edmund Randolph thought there was no such right, but Alexander Hamilton and some guy named Madison thought there was) [For Madison, it was in the form of the Second Bank of the US, for Hamilton it was the First]
-Where in the Constitution do you find the right to treat truth as a defense against libel? (The Zenger trial preceded the Constitution)
-Where in the Constitution do you find the right to treat actual malice as a requirement for public officials to sue for defamation? (New York Times vs. Sullivan 1964)
-Where in the Constitution do you find the right to purchase the territories of Louisiana from France? (Thomas Jefferson was against this, but President Jefferson was for it)
-Where in the Constitution do you find the right for judicial review? (Marbury vs. Madison, and just about everything after that)

There are obviously more. I wanted a couple more involving the founding fathers, but these are just the ones I thought of right away. I may update later with more. But even these show that the idea that something is "what the Constitution allows for" is somewhat nonsensical. Is Jefferson's view of the Constitution more correct than Hamilton's? And, incidentally, which Jefferson is this, the man or the President? What about Madison, should he hold a special place, his opinion valued over that of the other delegates  of the Constitutional Convention?

Could you devise a Constitutional argument for health care reform? I am sure you could.
Could you devise a Constitutional argument against health care reform? I am sure you could.

Either way, people who are for health care reform will say it is right to do it, and people who are against it will say that it is wrong to do it. Quite frankly, the Constitution doesn't play a role in it, and here is why:

If you are against (for) health care reform and I explain why it is right (wrong) in Constitutional terms, will you accept it, or will you say that I am wrong, despite using the Constitution, because my use of it is wrong?

My guess is you will say I am wrong, presuming that your view of the Constitution is the right one. So really, its your view that is guiding you, not the Constitution. And thats the way it has to be, because the Constitution does not have a voice with which to speak, it is not being in itself which can tell what fits with it and what doesn't. Thats for us to decide, and we decide that with our views, not with some inherent structure of the Constitution which accepts or rejects ideas.

So please, unless you are willing to accept any argument that someone can put in Constitutional terms as correct, don't ask "Where in the Constitution....?" because what you really should be asking is "Why do you think this is right?" Because if it is, then we will be sure it fits with the Constitution. 

Where do Libertarian Babies Come From?

While this post deals with a problem I have regarding children in general, I feel that Libertarians should be particularly troubled by this and so have a harder time with children.

So an issue I have been trying to think through recently is, from where do we get the right to raise children? It is widely recognized that parents have the right to raise their children, to command their life for a number of years: telling them what to do, where to go, what to eat, etc. But people don't have this right in general. Libertarians especially, but most people also, believe in individual freedom and choice, that no person has the rights over the life of another person.

So why is it that parents have this right over children?

Is it because the parents made the children, and so they have the right to do with them as they see fit? If that's the reason, then parents should be able to command their children's lives all the time, not just when they are young. After all, the fact that parents made the child is always true, and if the right comes from that, then the right must always be there.

Is it because the child doesn't know any better, and so it needs to have its life directed? If that's the reason, then who makes the determination about when or if the child knows better? If it's the parents call, then a parent could say that child never knows any better and so they have the right to control his/her life for ever. If this is the reason, then a person never has control over his/her life until their parents relinquishes the right. And this is without even going into the issue of whether this determination needs to be made by both parents or just one.

Or is it that the community decides when or if the child knows better? If this is true then a group of people can decide whether or not a person can have freedom and autonomy from their parents, and so the right of the child to control his own life comes from the group. So if the community decides that a 25 year old with a job still doesn't know better, its alright for the parents to control where they live, their bank accounts, etc.

Does this right to control the life of the child come from the fact that a child isn't a "person" until a certain age, and so has no rights beforehand but has all the rights of a person afterwards? If that's the reason then it would sanction all kinds of actions against children because they aren't people and so don't have rights.

Or is it that a child is a "quasi-person" who has some rights of people but not others? If so, then who delineates these rights, and who decides when a child goes from quasi- to full-person?

Even if this right to control a child's life comes from the fact that the child doesn't know any better, why is it that the parents are the ones to direct this life? The fact that a child is deemed to be unable to take care of himself proves that someone should take care of him, it doesn't necessarily mean that it should be the parents. To give the parents this right must mean that we are assuming that these parents will best take care of the child. This might make sense from an evolutionary way, a person is much more likely to take good care of family than a stranger. But then we recognize that the parent's right in this case comes from an argument for efficiency, and not some innate right to the child.

So, where do Libertarian babies come from, what arguments do people of that philosophy make to justify this right?

Why is it that we have the right to raise children?

He Kept Us Out of War

A new passion has taken over Americans, a passion for history. This new wave of historical soul-searching is a wonderful thing, but requires a complete view of history and not a hodge-podge of selected anecdotes connected with threads of ideological narrative. Part of this blog, therefore, will be devoted to filling in areas of history being omitted from current popular accounts. This first post, and another to come soon, will deal with US Presidents of the early 20th Century.

Part of this new wave of historical appetite by people involves the idea that Woodrow Wilson was a two-faced belligerent who won his second term by touting his administration’s neutrality and then immediately reversed and declared war on Germany. This view of history, as well as the overall desire for an increased knowledge of history, is inspired by Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck’s hatred of Woodrow Wilson should be well known by now, and his thoughts on this particular part of Wilson are:

    “I hate this S.O.B., and the more you learn about this guy, the more you will too. This is the most evil guy I think we've had in office. 1916, Woodrow Wilson won re-election in part -- large part due to a commitment to keep America from entering World War I. One of the campaign slogans boasted, "He kept us out of war." There was a very strong anti-war sentiment in America at the time. Americans -- if Americans favored a side, they would have gone with the Germans, because Germans were the largest ethnic group in America at the time. Most people weren't paying attention; the Germans were. OK. So on the eve of asking Congress to declare war on Germany -- yeah, remember, he ran I'm not going to get us into war -- it was a month later -- I've got to give you the exact date, because this is amazing: 1916, he was running for election. 1917, his inaugural address, March 4, 1917, he said we're going to pursue peace and even though we have been injured by the effects of war, we're not going into war. That was March 4, 1917. April 13, 1917, America goes to war.” (The Glenn Beck Show, March 26 2010)

That certainly sounds like a terrible turn of direction by Wilson. The only problem with this, as in other of Beck’s views of history, is that it is an utterly cursory glance at events without actually considering all that happened. I have therefore decided that my inaugural post should be in providing a more complete timeline of the US’s entrance into WWI. Seeing as this weekend marks the end of reparation payments by Germany for WWI, this is a perfect time.

Woodrow Wilson

First, however, let’s be reminded of a more recent event, against which Wilson’s quick and eager belligerence should be seen:

On September 11th, 2001 the United States was attacked by 19 hijacking terrorists. Of these, 15 were from Saudi Arabia, 2 were from the United Arab Emirates, 1 was Lebanese, and 1 was Egyptian. These men were not the legitimate military of Afghanistan, or of any nation. On October 7th, 2001, a month after the attack, the US launched Operation Enduring Freedom and the war in Afghanistan.

So, a month after the US was attacked we mobilized for war. How could we not? US citizens had been attacked and killed, not because they were on the battlefield or in a war but simply because they went about their lives. And it is the duty of government to defend people from such things. Whether citizens are killed in buildings, in planes, or on ships, the US should respond to foreign threats against its people.

We now join the War to End All Wars, already in progress. All quotes regarding WWI are from the wonderful A World Undone by GJ Meyer available here.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 6th, 1915 the RMS Lusitania was torpedoed, killing American passengers, by a German U-boat which was engaging in unrestricted submarine warfare during WWI. This U-boat was part of the legitimate military of Germany and was the direct responsibility of Germany. The response of the US under Woodrow Wilson was to negotiate a halt to such activity, and on June 5th an order went out from Berlin calling a halt to the torpedoing of passenger liners on sight.

Sure, the US had been attacked, not just by terrorists but by a legitimate foreign power, but still no entry to war.

On November 7th, 1916 Woodrow Wilson won reelection in the US, running on a campaign of “He Kept Us Out of War”, a factual statement. Despite attacks on US citizens, the US maintained neutrality by negotiating an end to unrestricted submarine warfare.

On January 9th, 1917 Germany resumed unrestricted submarine warfare, taking the calculated decision to risk the US entering the war for the sake of destroying Britain’s blockade. German Chancellor Bethmann Hollweg, who advocated against the unrestricted campaign, later wrote of this decision, “In view of these facts and of the declared readiness of Headquarters to risk war with the United States, I could not advise His Majesty to do other than to accept the opinion of his military advisers.”

Chancellor Bethmann Hollweg

This act of Germany came 2 months after Wilson had campaigned on keeping the US out of war, on a neutrality based on Germany’s agreement on submarine warfare. Germany’s decision was tantamount to declaring the permissibly of attacking and killing US citizens.

On January 31, pursuant to his instructions, Ambassador Bernstorff of Germany announced “the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare to U.S. secretary of state Robert Lansing, expressed his regret at having to do so, and withdrew.”

On February 2 Wilson met with his cabinet, “found that its members were almost unanimously in favor of going to war, and replied that he still had hopes of staying out, of acting as a peacemaker.” Thus, despite Germany’s clearly breaking its agreement with the US and putting US ships and citizens under threat of attack, Wilson refused to enter war. After winning reelection on keeping the US out of war, and now already secure with a second term, Wilson maintained the desire to remain outside the war. Still no sign of Wilson’s hidden belligerence.

 This decision to stay out of war was not without criticism:

    “The situation remained static for nearly three weeks, with Republican leaders of the Senate and former president Theodore Roosevelt calling for war and Wilson remaining silent. The ports of the East Coast became grid-locked with loaded merchant ships, their owners afraid to order them to sea. The rail lines leading into those ports began to back up as well, unable to unload the huge quantities of freight bound for Europe. Farmers and manufacturers, workers and shippers, labor unions and corporations all began to scream as costs rose, perishable goods began to rot, and sales and jobs were jeopardized. Everyone looked to the White House and waited. It began to seem possible, to the astonishment of many and the delight of some, that not even the U-boat campaign was going to persuade Wilson to make war.”

US lives and commerce were under the threat of German attack, and still Wilson’s desire for war was absent. See a list of these attacks here.

 Finally, on February 23 the British provided the US with a copy of the Zimmermann Telegram.  This document was sent by Arthur Zimmermann, head of the German foreign ministry, to the German ambassador in Mexico City, suggesting that if the US enters the war against Germany that Mexico should ally with Germany and attack the US. The telegram read in part:

    “WE MAKE MEXICO A PROPOSAL OF ALLIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS: MAKE WAR TOGETHER, MAKE PEACE TOGETHER, GENEROUS FINANCIAL SUPPORT, AND AN UNDERSTANDING ON OUR PART THAT MEXICO IS TO RECONQUER THE LOST TERRITORY IN TEXAS, NEW MEXICO AND ARIZONA. THE SETTLEMENT IN DETAIL IS LEFT TO YOU.“

Zimmermann Telegram

On February 28 the telegram was made public, and still the US under Wilson did not enter the war. Consider the sum of German actions, the breaking of the agreement on submarine warfare, the attacks on US ships, the disruption of US commerce,  and now this. Still the US remained out.

 On March 7th, “the president went into deep seclusion, refusing to see or confer with anyone. On March 12 he emerged to issue an executive order for the arming of American merchant ships, thereby bypassing the LaFollette filibuster. Then he again withdrew, and the days crept past with the world holding its breath. On March 18 three American ships were sunk by U-boats. Two days later Wilson called his cabinet together and again asked its members for their opinion. To a man, they favored war.”

 On April 6th, after approval from both the House and Senate, the US decaled war on Germany.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Putting this record into the historical context of our modern war:

 1 Month after the US was attacked by terrorists the US entered a war with Afghanistan.

 3 Months after the government of Germany announced a resumption of submarine attacks on US ships and citizens the US declared war.

Yet Wilson is now decried as a lying belligerent, who ran for reelection on neutrality and then immediately reversed and declared war. The record instead speaks of a surprising reluctance to go to war, a reluctance almost unimaginable today. It seems to me inconceivable for a President today to allow the US to suffer such attacks, such disruptions to our way of life, for so long.

This is not to defend Wilson as a person, but simply to correct this half-baked notion fostered by Glenn Beck that Wilson was flip-flopping or two-faced in his neutrality and his subsequent declaration of war. I hope that this provides a better understanding of History.

Next post on this topic will be Harding and Coolidge: Daring Duo of Constitutional Dereliction