Let’s Unpack Together

Today I attempt to unpack and reduce my current political convictions to their most basic elements. My hope in doing so, for whomever one day might stumble across this (or even for my future self), is to build bridges of good will. To explain myself so fully that, even though we disagree, there can be no doubt about my motives, as that is frequently what gets misassigned when you disagree with someone. 

First, a story. In June of 2016, there was a terrible attack at PULSE nightclub in Orlando. Try to recall what you know about that event. I'll wait....

That day, the attacker called 911. He was very blunt and explicit about his motives. He said:

 "You have to tell America to stop bombing Syria and Iraq. They're killing a lot of innocent people. What am I to do here when my people are getting killed over there? You need to stop the US airstrikes. You have to tell the US government to stop bombing. They’re killing too many children. They’re killing too many women. I feel the pain of people getting killed in Syria and Iraq. They need to stop bombing people in Syria and Iraq." (That year, there were over 24 thousand bombs dropped in Syria and Iraq, 90% of which have been estimated to have hit unintended targets.)

The terrorist's motive was very clear. He did something horrible for the amplification of a specific message. Did you hear about that message, or did you hear the whole thing summarized as something else? 

In then President Barak Obama's words:

“This was an attack on the LGBT community. Americans were targeted because we’re a country that has learned to welcome everyone no matter who you are or who you love. And hatred towards people because of sexual orientation, regardless of where it comes from, is a betrayal of what’s best in us.”

This statement from someone who, with all of his clearance, undoubtedly knew better. 

Media got in line and parroted as per diligent duty. Only one local Florida station aired a clip from a witness who described the killer yelling about the attacks on his country. All others ran with a false divide that we're allowed to bicker about.

That brings me to my most basic conviction: Self-serving first, government and those in bed with it are in the business of directing attention and inquiry. 

It decides what kinds of debates we can handle. It determines what questions may be asked (cough, Covid, cough). It finds a fall guy. It distracts. Whatever it can't escape answering, it withholds until the average American's attention span is gone. 

I'm not talking about media bias. I'm talking about knowing where your bread is buttered and how quickly it can be unbuttered. I'm talking about deliberately fracturing people over artificial divides to mask real ones. I'm talking about a system that doesn't care if the president has an R or a D next to their name as long as they play ball in the confines of preserving that system. A system built on coercion and determined opacity.  

So what, you ask? Isn’t the system worth preserving in order to stand in the way of chaos and social Darwinism? Not if you share my next conviction…

Conviction #2: The Public Sector is not run on any better incentive structure than the private. In fact, its coercive nature protects it from the one true power check. 

To the extent you could call me a conservative, I am conservative with the amount of power I believe is ever appropriate to give up to the government. Not because I don't believe in compassion or social cooperation, but because I don't believe in mandating or delegating it. I believe much more deeply in the swift and inevitable perversion and obliteration of those things when they are coerced by delegation. 

Somehow, though there is little difference between them, the voluntary sector is "greedy" while the coercive sector gets to operate under the guise of the "greater good." But why?

We are presented with arguments about imperfect knowledge in the free market as if it's not as ubiquitous at the voting booth (where the amount of information asymmetry is even greater). 

Warned about "profit seekers" in the private sector as if politicians and bureaucrats are unpaid volunteers. 

Warned about greed and dog-eat-dog mentality as if that's not the definition of a political campaign.

Warned about private sector externalities as if the state isn't itself a huge externality. 

Warned about the short-sightedness of individuals in the private sector not caring what's left in their wake as if politicians are more concerned with future generations than with extracting all the wealth, power, social status, and influence they can get until they can get a permanent cushy seat somewhere else (deep state, consulting class, moving and repping another state, member on a private-but-regime-friendly board, or beating-the-market-with-insider-info-investments retirement, you pick). 

These failures apply equally in both places - the only real difference is the difference between a consumer and a voter. A voter, far removed from direct consequence, will not immediately bear the cost of bad decision making and may never even realize it - increasing the size and frequency of bad decision-making. At least consumers have the power of disassociation whenever an entity fails to provide something of worth. Voters do not. 

Ok, so I took two rocks out of my pack. I started unpacking. No time to get into how free market capitalism is not the same thing as cronyism despite being lumped together when rhetorically convenient. Or how lawfare is rearing its ugly head in a way that can no longer mask the true divide in this nation of inside vs outside instead of left vs right. Needless to say, when I hear warnings and concerns about threats to democracy, I have not yet been able to see this alarm bell as anything but a mere tactic from the inside against something from the outside. 

I guess you could say I'm a full-blown libertarian. Not for lack of trying not to be one. But if you would like to unpack for me, I'm always happy to try again.