Who Will Lead Us to the Promised Land?

With the presidential election just a few days away, both candidates are pulling out the stops. In politics, like boxing, there is no bank on punches. Emotions are high. Partisanship is high, higher than it has been in a very long time.Why? It is because there is so much at stake. The federal government touches upon every aspect of life in the U.S. The policies crafted and implemented by the modern president affect deeply private and personal aspects of people's lives. The president, with a stroke of a pen, can set policy on civil rights and gay rights. He can set policy on what your children should learn and what they should value. He can affect policy regarding what people should eat, what they should buy, and where they should live. He sets foreign policy. He establishes domestic priorities. He can tell people what they should think, what they should eat, and what they should believe. In short, almost every facet of life in America is under the purview of the White House. That is why emotions are running high.

Through the casuistry of modern liberalism, matters traditionally considered to be private have become subject to public intervention. Individuals can no longer be left to come to their own conclusions regarding social issues. They can no longer be trusted to determine their own morals and principals. They can no longer be relied upon to set their own priorities and pursue them in a responsible manner. They cannot be left alone to raise their children as they see fit. They are unfit to come to their own conclusions on what is fair and proper. They cannot be allowed to determine their own "values". They must be educated. They are too lazy and ignorant. They must be indoctrinated into the Idea. They must be enticed, prodded, and coerced. It does not matter whether the Idea is determined by progressives or conservatives. It is the mere ability of the government to determine the horizon of thought in the nation that engenders the struggle over its control. What people believe is important to them. If their beliefs are contradicted by public policy they will endeavor to bring social policy into harmony with their beliefs. Others might seek to withdraw from the controversy and live their lives according to their own values. The trouble with that is that progressives, conservative and liberal alike, want the hearts and minds of everyone. The existence of heretical beliefs, however marginal or isolated, is anathema to progressives. Everyone is obliged to embrace the Idea. Even those who seek to withdraw from public debate into their own homes and communities will find no peace for the government will pursue them.

You cannot have a government that affects so much of peoples' live without stirring their emotions. You cannot have a government charged to defend or advance public sensibilities without raising the stakes.You cannot raise the stakes and not expect a struggle over who controls the government. The higher the stakes, the more bitter the struggle, and the stakes have never been higher. Instead of campaigns centered on policy, we have campaigns based on emotion. We are not to support or oppose a candidate. We are called to embrace or fear him.

More than ever, politics is about "visions". Visions are unsubstantial things. Visions are unencumbered. They float freely in the mind. So are "feelings". They appeal to emotion, not intellect. They are not subject to reason. You cannot persuade emotion. You can only appeal to it. So if your feeling is that Obama's vision of a better America is more enticing than Romney's, cast your vote for him. If you think Romney's vision for America holds more appeal than Obama's, cast your vote him. Either will disappoint.

The real danger lays not in waste, cost, inefficiency,or turbulence. It lay in the inevitable failure of the Idea to transform reality and usher in the new age. It is there that the Idea achieves its true and terrible form because the Idea is not abandoned. In their frustration, the adherents of the Idea will become more tenacious in their efforts to overcome perceived obstacles. The Idea will become coercive. Progressives will seek to compel the public to embrace it. They see nothing wrong with compelling the public. Why should they? Everything progressives do is for the advancement of the public. In time, when the Idea begins to bear fruit, the public will thank them and wonder how they ever could have been so ignorant.

Romney has called his campaign a "movement". Obama claims Americans need a "champion" to fight for social justice (whatever social justice might require at the moment). Someone needs to remind the public that elections are campaigns. They are, or should be, about politics, not about movements and chivalry. Romney is not Moses.There is no Promised Land of Prosperity out there waiting for a leader to take us to. The middle class is not a damsel in need of a chivalrous knight to defend her. America is a country that, more than ever, needs a president, nothing more and nothing less.

In a recent editorial, Dallas Morning News editorialist Carl Leubsdorf asks what kind of America do voters yearn for. Like many people, Leubsdorf takes for granted that the presidency is at the heart of American life and contains the power to shape the country in any fashion the president chooses. As the presidency goes, so goes America. It is unfortunate that he is largely correct. That is why the Oval Office is so bitterly fought over. When people enter the voting booth on Tuesday, they will not be choosing who will preside over the government, defend the Constitution, and execute the laws . They will be choosing what kind of country they yearn to live in. If you want to know why politics have become so acrimonious, look no further.
 

Religious Mockery

In an editorial in Sunday's Dallas Morning News, William Salatin, a writer for Slate, asks why antisemitism is banned and pilloried while anti Islam and Christian hatred is allowed to flourish. That is a good question. Of course the history of antisemitism is a long and terrible one. Jews have suffered more for their religion than any other. That is why Western nations have become vigilant and striven to keep antisemitism on the margin. They have learned that when a religion becomes a target for scorn, the adherents of that religion become targets as well. So why is that lesson so quickly forgotten when it comes to Christians and Muslims?

When you mock or ridicule a religion the real target is not belief or faith. The real object is the adherents. You cannot lampoon prophets, saints, and texts without lampooning the people who believe in them. You cannot ridicule Judaism without ridiculing Jews. You cannot vilify Islam without vilifying Muslims. You cannot dedicate a web site to exposing the evil of the Catholic Church without condemning Catholics. You cannot make a buffoon out of Jesus without making buffoons of Christians. That is the real danger underlying religious mockery. By denigrating a religion you marginalize its believers. When you place a crucifix in a jar of urine you are symbolically putting all Christians in a jar of urine. That is why such offense is taken by the religious. If the Pope is a tyrant, then Catholics are sheep. If Mohamed was a lecher, what does that say about those who adhere to his teachings? If Mormonism is a cult, then Mormons are cultists.

There are any number of laws protecting people and groups from derision and hatred. Very rarely do those laws apply to people of faith. People are free to slather religion with hate. Because they do not apply to religions, they do not apply to believers. Religious people are frequently singled out as driven by ignorance and authoritarian zeal. They are suspect because their motivation comes from a source that has always been out of reach of the secular state. When their faith is in harmony with the sensibilities of society, they are welcomed. But the platitudes and vacuous calls for love and tolerance common at public and political events are little more than a neutered vestige of Christianity. Christ's charge to love your neighbor and his frequent calls for forgiveness are rallying cries for the religious left. His requirement that sin be recognized and admitted to and mercy must be asked for before it can be received is ignored. Christ's command that you live according to the word of God is shunned in favor of his admonition not to judge others.

The Islamic faith has become a target for hostility. Islam is perceived as a menace to the free world. Therefore Muslims are a menace. They are often portrayed as blood thirsty savages bent on death and destruction. They are frequently associated with terrorists and tyrants. They are lampooned and caricatured as ignorant, backward, dirty, and violent. Korans are burned. The long, crooked noses, hunched backs, scheming visages, and bony hands once reserved for Jews have become part of the common portrayal of the Islamic plotter. Certainly not all discussions of Islam are limited to its savageness. There is an effort by some to reveal the piety, humility, and compassion that runs throughout Islam. If one takes the time to look one can find the long tradition of tolerance and respect for other faiths. One will find calls for mercy and love. But just as a thousand acts of charity and love can be undone by one violent act, one thousand depictions of humble and peaceful Muslims can be undone by one hateful caricature or spiteful article.

It is not difficult to find images, anecdotes, and articles vilifying Islam. There are no doubt thousands of websites and publications dedicated to insulting and mocking Muslims. Just a few key strokes will take you right down into the sewer. Blogger Pamela Geller has gained a considerable following through her tirades against what she sees as the inherent wickedness of Islam. Many of those sites and publications style themselves as defenders of Christianity and Western values. They dedicate themselves to exposing the "evil" behind Islam: its goal to enslave the world and exterminate non believers. Such sites are little more than malicious rants. Most of them extend their vitriol beyond Islam to include all Muslims. They cherry pick their topics, combing the news for articles sympathetic to their point of view. Curiously, more than a few are willing to glide over the intolerant bile of Terry Jones and Jerry Falwell and treat it as simply a malignant growth on the Christian body. They turn a blind eye to the flagrant hatred and racism of Jewish Settlers. They ignore the Muslims bringing bread to their homeless neighbors in favor of the angry men burning flags and waving rifles.Their attention is tightly focused on Islamic extremism.

There are approximately 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. They constitute 23% of the world's population. The vast majority of them are peaceful and modest in their faith. The number of Muslim extremists among them is minuscule. Nevertheless, the entire faith and its 1.6 billion adherents are frequently tarred with one brush. Just as Mother Teresa and Martin Luther King can be forgotten by the secular left in their zeal to expose the "truth" about Christians, the Islamic emphasis on charity and the commandment to tolerate people of "the Book", i.e. Christians and Jews, is ignored in the focus on Islamic extremists.

If people want to discuss the rising tide of extremism in Islam, they should be encouraged. It is a subject that needs understanding. If people want to decry the violence perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists, they should not be silenced. But if people want to condemn and mock the Islamic faith and imply that Muslims are all potential terrorists, they should be addressed as what they are: intolerant, ignorant, and hateful.

Hatred for the religious is one hatred progressives are willing to tolerate. Indeed, they will fight for the right to hate religion.

Gambling for the Troops

Texas is once again finding itself in trouble over sagging lottery sales. While On Tuesday it was announced that its Veterans Cash lottery game was down 42% from this time last year. That translates into $4.7 million in lost revenue. The game was inaugurated in 2009 to help veterans by funding a wide variety of services from rehabilitation to counseling. All of Texas lottery ticket revenue is dedicated to education but one. The Veterans Cash lottery ticket was dedicated to helping veterans. This is of particular concern because 9 out of every ten dollars provided to the state fund for Veterans Assistance fund come from lottery sales.

A similar ticket issued in Illinois is also in trouble. "There's a lot you can do with these special interest games if you think about them differently" said Illinois' lottery superintendent Michael Jones. He has proposed gimmicks to improve sales such as allowing ticket buyers the opportunity to fire a howitzer.

"People are patriotic", said Texas state Senator Leticia van de Putte. "Maybe we should do a little more advertising." Maybe they are patriotic, but they are not patriotic enough to support more state funding for veteran's programs, schools, and roads. They need to be enticed by the prospect of making some quick money.

People want to help others. They want the homeless to have a place to live. They want the hungry to have food. They want children to be able to go to decent schools. The problem is that many don't want to have to pay more or do anything themselves. They want others to take care of the problem. The government is more than willing to accommodate them. The government makes it easy to ease your conscience by taking the burden of tending to others upon itself. All a citizen has to do is pay his taxes and his obligation to society is met. More than a few want something for their beneficence.What better way to help the homeless than to buy some cookies or attend a concert? Still others want a more public display of their generosity. What better way to help the hungry than to attend a gallery opening or a charity benefit? Now people will have another way to help. They can play the lottery.

No one is going to buy a lottery ticket to benefit veterans or fund schools. If they really wanted to do something they would volunteer or write a check to support the cause. They are going to buy a lottery ticket to win money. By dedicating proceeds from a lottery ticket to a program, the government is simply enticing people to gamble by allowing them to justify their gambling by putting a veneer of social benefit on it. People can go to a store and purchase $20 in lottery tickets and tell themselves that they are contributing to a worthy cause by doing so, that is if they give their purchase any thought beyond the simple habit and the hope of winning money.

If people truly cared about the causes and needs the lottery boards claims to be benefiting they would do something other than seek personal gain. There are any number of charities that would welcome the money. But where is the fun in donating to them? Where is the reward in that? Offering to dedicate some of the proceeds from lottery sales to worthy causes is not far removed from prostitutes offering to set aside some of their profits to help women's centers, or casinos offering to support homeless programs. In each case an effort is made to polish a vice and maintain its appeal and continued existence by trying to put a veneer of nobility on it. Vice is to be encouraged, in moderation of course, if it is for a good cause.

States want people to buy lottery tickets. Increasingly, they need people to buy lottery tickets. What can you do if greed and desperation are not enough? Simple: you seek to portray playing the lottery as a civil contribution. You can attempt to portray playing the lottery as an act of civil and moral responsibility if you like, but it does not change its essence. It is still gambling. Whatever the merits of the cause, the motivation is, and will always be, personal gain no matter what lottery players promise God and the fates regarding all the good and decent things they will do with their winnings. To use veterans as a marketing ploy to boost lottery sales is not only crass marketing, it is shameful.

So, even if you can't attend some celebrity gala or play around of golf for the troops, you can still do your part and buy lottery tickets. Who knows? You might even make yourself a nice pile of money to go with that warm feeling. It is not like you are being asked to wash cars or bake a pie. If everyone does their part we just might gamble our way to a better society.

If the state lottery board's plan works, a whole new vista will open up for lottery sales. I can see it now: lottery tickets for the homeless, pregnant teens, and the elderly. At least people will be able to put their money where there heart is.

Don't Feed the Animals

Last Thursday, the New York City Board of Health passed a rule banning the sale of large soft drinks in delis, movie theaters, and restaurants. The move was made in response to the growing girth of the citizens of that city. Establishments that feature self serve drink fountains would be prohibited from providing cups larger than 16 ounces. Other measures in the rule deal with the complicated issues such as chocolate milk and energy drinks. The rule was fought by businesses on the grounds that the banning of "super size" soda pop and other sugar laden beverages would cut into profits. A compromise was reached in which calories, ingredients, and nutritional content were juggled so as to allow some popular drinks like chocolate milk though the cracks.

It is remarkable that the city felt obliged to take up the task of involving itself in the diets of its citizens. Education has failed to curb the appetites of New Yorkers. Public service campaigns have failed. The omnipresence of sleek ads featuring thin, attractive models has failed to shame and entice New Yorkers into losing weight. Parents have failed to shape the dietary habits of their children in a suitably healthy manner. Progressives are at their wits end. The next best step is to intervene by limiting the options available to the consumer. Since people have demonstrated too great a willingness to eat what is put in front of them, steps have to be taken to limit what can be put in front of them. To that end, progressives are at work chiseling down the dietary options available to consumers.

The free market is based on supply and demand. People want super size meals, giant drinks, big, greasy cheeseburgers, and six inch thick pastrami sandwiches. That is why is why businesses sell them. People like sugar, salt, and fat in their food because it makes food taste good. The demand for a thing creates a supply. But the government has so far failed in curbing the demand for high calorie, fat laden food in amounts far greater than is needed to support life. They always will. Eating food you like in the amount you want is part of human nature. It has been a goal of humans since they first left the cave.

Most Americans are able to limit their appetites to what is, if not beneficial, is at least not harmful to their health. But a trip to the mall or the grocery store reveals that a great many haven't. What can be done about them? The growing mountain of data concerning the rate and economic costs of obesity is a gilded invitation for progressives to intervene. When data demonstrates that there is correlation between the activity of individuals, regardless of whether it occurs in public or in private, and the functioning of the community, the government has an obligation to step in. This is because for the progressive, whether liberal or conservative, there is no distinction between the public and the political. If it can be demonstrated that a particular activity or behavior has consequences extending beyond the individual, society has a duty to involve itself lest that activity or behavior disturb the public weal. Naturally, the particulars vary according to individual sentiment, but there is a common thread. The public must be protected from private heresy because private heresy, if left unchecked, can undermine society.

Ideally, the public can be educated into the idea. Thin is good. Obese is bad. These foods will keep you thin. Those foods will make you fat. Where education fails, the public must be prodded and enticed. Obese people are shamed and mocked. Thin people are celebrated and held up for emulation. Where prodding fails, coercion must be used. People must be forbidden to tread the path that leads to obesity.  But they cannot be left to themselves to follow the path to fitness and health. People must be shepherded down that path and, to ease the task, the path must be narrowed and straightened and the exits closed.

When you go to a zoo you cannot help but notice the signs telling visitors not to feed the animals. This is because the animals all have regulated diets created to maintain their health. If people are free to toss in whatever food they please, the animals will either neglect the food the staff provides them in favor of the french fries and hot dogs people will throw, or they will eat everything. Either way, the animal's health will suffer. The animal is incapable of distinguishing between what is healthy for it to eat and what is not. It does not know how much it should eat. If you throw donuts and carrots in the monkey cage, the monkeys will eat the donuts. They will eat what tastes good. Progressives believe that people are little better. They believe that if you put foot long hot dogs in front of Americans, Americans will eat foot long hot dogs. That is why action is needed to restrict what can be put in front of them. Despite the frequent  paeans to the rights and dignity of the individual, progressives do not believe that people can be trusted to conduct themselves appropriately on their own. They must be vigilantly watched, clearly guided, and constantly goaded lest they slip into barbarism and ignorance, or, in this case, obesity.

People are not animals. They can choose what they will eat and in what amount. If liberty is to mean anything you have to allow people to choose how they will conduct themselves. Just because people make poor decisions is no reason to restrict liberty. A progressive paradise would be a strange thing to behold. You would be free to marry whomever you wanted but you would not be free to eat whatever you wanted.

Don't let all the details and statistics fool you. It is really a simple plan. If the only thing Americans can eat is healthy food in modest amounts, the only thing they will eat is healthy food in modest amounts. For progressives, if people are unwilling or unable to make the right decision when confronted with multiple options, you have to narrow the list down to only those choices you approve of. They believe life should be reduced to a multiple choice test where all the wrong answers have been removed. Progressives have a plan for what America should be. One way or another, people will have to adhere to that plan.

The Edge of Reason

On Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Wolf ruled that Art Kosilek, a convicted murderer serving a life term in Massachusetts, was entitled to receive gender realignment surgery at the tax payers' expense. Koselik believes he is a woman in a man's body and to compel him to remain in that body constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. It was asserted that the surgery was the only way Koslek's condition can be treated. To deny him gender realignment surgery deemed necessary to his mental well being is to deny him his right to health care. Despite the fact that Kosilek is still biologically and physiologically a man, the court sought fit to refer to him as a woman. The decision was hailed as a great step forward on behalf of transgendered people everywhere.

The trouble with the ruling is that Mark Kosilek is not being denied health care. If Koselik falls ill or is injured he has full access to the same health care every other prisoner is entitled to. What Kosilek is being denied is a sex change operation at taxpayers' expense. But feeling you are living in the wrong body is not a medical condition. It does not hinder your mobility. It does not cause physical pain. It does not threaten your health. It is not fatal if left untreated. Believing you are living in the wrong body is not a physical malady. It is a psychological condition.

It is increasingly common for people to seek medical treatment to attempt to address their dissatisfaction with their appearance. Many, if not most, Americans have something about themselves that they are unhappy with. They believe they are too short. They are losing their hair. They have stretch marks. They are overweight. They have bandy legs. There is something out there for almost everybody. Indeed, if movie stars like Angelina Jolie can be dissatisfied with their appearance to the point of getting surgery, anyone can.  For some people, dissatisfaction evolves into preoccupation. Preoccupation can lead to anxiety, even obsession.  However, if that obsession becomes so occluded so as to prevent a person from functioning normally, it is psychological issue, not a medical one.

With the advancements in surgery and treatment, many conditions that had to be endured in the past can now be treated. By and large, this is a good thing. Why endure the pain and physical restrictions of a damaged knee if you can solve that problem through surgery? Why suffer physical deformity if that deformity can be corrected or compensated for? There is no reason to.

Some deformities and injuries are so severe they can fairly be described as requiring medical treatment even if there is no jeopardy to a person's health. Decency and compassion require us to provide a remedy to those who have lost facial features if a remedy is available, even if the law doesn't. None of those factors apply to Robert Kosilek. He is healthy. He suffers no deformity. His mobility is not limited. He is in no physical pain. His appearance and genitalia are a source of anxiety to him alone.

Despite the cries of activists, Kosilek is not being denied health care. No transgendered person is. If they are sick or injured they have access to the same care that everyone else has. If Kosilek requires medical attention he will be provided with it, just as any other prisoner would. The court in Massachusetts veered onto a new path when it agreed that the only way to treat Koselik's disorder is through surgery. The ruling was predicated on the idea that Koselik's disorder did not require psychological treatment, but medical treatment.

The lack of equilibrium between Koselik's vision of himself and reality is the source of his psychological turmoil, not his gender. It is becoming more and more common in instances where a person's view of themselves and the world they live in is in conflict with reality, for progressives to insist that reality that yield. This is a futile endeavor. Reality yields to no one. In Koselik's case, he finds himself in conflict with nature. He is biologically a man. No court or law can change that. The only thing that can be changed is his appearance. Transgendered people can get surgery to change the way their body appears but that appearance will be a deception. Surgery can no more make a man a woman than it can make a duck into a goose.

Mara Keisling, Executive Director of the National Center for Transgender Equality lamented that in our society "transgender people are... denied health care access all the time." She is wrong. They are not. They have access to the same health care that everyone else has. Evidently, she is aware of the precarious nature of her assertion because she went on to add that at the bottom, transgendered people are victims of "insufficient training, insufficient competency, and insufficient humanity". Deficiencies in training and competency are easily accounted for. They can be addressed through legislation. But "insufficient humanity" is another thing entirely. That is the key. If society's treatment of transgendered people is really going to change it has to be through getting at the roots of the matter. You have to change society. To change society, you have to change the way people think.

When progressives speak of changing society, they usually mean that the government should change society. That is why there is continual insistence that politicians be leaders possessed of great visions of what the country should be like. But the thought of great leaders setting out to change the way people think should be abhorrent to Americans. The thought of courts changing the way people think should be abhorrent as well. It is the ideologue that sets out to change the world. It was Marx who sought to raise men to their true potential through transforming political and economic conditions to realize his vision of what the world should look like. The thought of remaking society in accordance with some plan has frequently been the cause for great barbarism and cruelty. It contains within it the idea that society can and must be molded if it is to come into its full and proper condition. If people resist progress, they must be prodded. When prodding fails, force must be used.

It is the mark of the ideologue that, when their vision of the world is in conflict with the world in which they live, it is the world that must yield and, that when their vision of what mankind should be is in conflict with mankind as it exists, then mankind must be brought into line. It is the idea that is paramount. It is the idea that is the measure of society. Society is merely the form the idea takes when it realizes itself in existence.Men can either cooperate with the idea or they can resist it. They cannot in anyway alter its nature. When the idea is on conflict with reality, people, being the stubborn thing that they they are, must to change. They must be educated into the idea. When "education" fails in the task, legislation is relied upon. If legislation fails, coercion is used. One way or another, the ideologue will endeavor to mold mankind to fit the idea.

"There are still people who believe that being a transgendered person is a choice, or exotic or bad" said Keisling. For those at the cutting edge of human progress, too many people are thinking incorrectly. For people like Keisling, society has a duty to change the way people think. If that doesn't give you pause, nothing will. Transgendered people like Koselik are biologically and physiologically male. The only place they are female is in their mind. They want to reshape their physiology reflect the image they carry of themselves.  The problem in the case of transgendered people is that gender is a biological distinction, not a psychic state. To call Koselik a woman is to subsume reality to feeling. Koselik's feelings about himself cannot change his gender. The most that can be accomplished is that Koselik will look like a woman. He will never be a woman. All the surgery and hormones in the world will not change that. Nevertheless, it is asserted that society is obliged to conform itself to the feelings of the individual. There was a time when one of the chief goals of psychotherapy was to adjust a person's psyche in order to bring him into harmony with reality. But that was when reality was believed to have a stable existence outside the human mind. Those days are gone.

There are those who argue that every newly discovered right is merely the logical extension of the one that went before it. It is argued that because A equals B, it must equal C as well. They are willing to follow this chain forever to wherever it leads, even if it leads to the absurd. To say that society is obliged to accommodate the personal feelings and emotions of its members and provide remedy to their psychic angst is to embark on a journey with no destination.

But let's be honest here. To force Koselik to serve his term with the genitalia he was born with is neither cruel or unusual. Koselik is not being denied health care. The issue of whether Koselik's is entitled to gender surgery  is not about him at all. It is about sending a message. It is about the state bestowing its imprimatur on transgendered people and giving them their place in the pantheon being built to "diversity".

It was recently reported that Voyager 1 is approaching the edge of the solar system. It will soon escape the influence of the Sun's gravity and enter the void of interstellar space. Like Voyager, we are approaching the frontier of  human reason. Once we pass through we will find ourselves in the void of desire, free from the gravity of tradition and history. It will be an endless wandering with no destination, propelled by emotion.

1,000 Mice Do Not Make an Elephant

Charles Blow, a columnist for the New York Times, recently wrote an editorial about the dismal plight of America's children. He cited a report issued by the Center for American Progress that reveals, among other things, that over half of the post secondary students in the U.S. drop out before graduating, that more than 20% of America's children live in poverty, and that half of the children in the U.S. receive no early childhood education. Nearly a quarter live in poverty. More than a quarter have chronic health conditions. (Many of them are just plain fat). No one expects the situation to improve significantly any tome soon

Against these statistics, Blow places the impressive statistics of other nations. China, for example, is expected to have over 200 million college graduates by 2030 (the current population of the U.S. is 314 million). Many will have degrees is useful fields such as science and engineering. To rectify the deteriorating in the U.S., Blow, like many others proposes that Washington take matters into hand.

China is a centralized state. Policy is decided by the central government and imposed on the nation. If the government in Beijing decides that the nation needs more engineers, the order goes out to the education system to produce more engineers. If Beijing decides that it needs more scientists, the order goes out to produce more scientists. The U.S. is not yet a centralized state. The economy moves to its own rhythm. If there is a shortage of engineers, the demand for them rises. When the demand for engineers rises, the rewards for becoming an engineer increase. When the rewards increase, students gravitate towards becoming engineers. If there is a glut of engineering graduates, the benefits of an engineering degree decrease and students will find another field. That is how things have always worked in the U.S. It has worked well enough for the U.S. to become the premier scientific, technological, and economic power in the world. But, if statistics are any guide, we are losing our edge. Something has changed. For those like Blow, what has changed is that there is a lack of focus on the part of the U.S. that can only be rectified by action in Washington.

Like with so many other issues, the cure for what ails America is government. The trick is to make an issue a matter of national concern. Once an issue becomes a national concern, Washington can step in. But how do you make an issue like high school education a matter of national concern? Through statistics, that's how. It is through statistics that all the nation's overweight children can be put into one basket and thereby become a single, national issue warranting intervention from Washington. It is through statistics that Blow and others determine that the physical, economic, and scientific deterioration evident in the nation's educational system are a national concern.

Children in the U.S. do not belong to the nation. They belong to parents. It is the parents' responsibility to raise their children, not the nation's. Something has changed in America over the last 50 years. The well earned victories of the Civil Rights and environmental movements have imbued progressives with a sense of omnipotence. They believe that there is no problem that cannot be rectified through the proper application of federal compulsion and enticement. They believe that people are fundamentally plastic and can be shaped into desired form through the proper application of government. And, despite the rhetoric of "systems" and the nation, we are talking about people: hundreds of million of people each with their own tastes, habits, plans, and ambitions.

Like all human endeavors, at the foundation of any system is people. The fundamental flaw of Marxism was that it believed that people were products of society. It asserted that if you changed the system you can change people. Marxism failed because it was mistaken. Society is the product of people. Progressives have sought to turn Marxism on its head by trying change people. They believe that if they change how people think and behave they can change the world. In that they are correct. Where they err is that they take the same road that led the Soviet Union to ruin. They believe that to change people you have to manipulate society, but not through a frontal assault as Marx advocated. You have to tease it towards perfection with legislation carefully crafted to channel people onto the desired path. Instead of the iron gauntlet of law, the velvet glove of regulation and economic manipulation is used. Progressives seek to change the nation's children and mold them into economically useful little engines capable of driving America forward. Children are to be subordinated to the needs of the nation, whatever those needs happen to be at the moment. We console ourselves in this endeavor by contemplating to all the marvelous rewards awaiting our children when they receive the fruits of their labor.

Statistics provide only the barest of sketches of groups acting according to identifiable patterns. When a correlation is discerned it is leaped  upon and shaped into a tool to with which to manipulate society with. They are outlines superimposed on hundreds of millions of individuals. People all want more and better. People all want to avoid deprivation and hardship. But that is about all you can say about them. They cannot tell  you what they want more of except in vague and often meaningless terms like "equality","justice", and a "good life". Such terms are empty brackets to be filled by individuals themselves. They cannot measure the ability or tell you the personal motivations that drive the individual. They measure patterns, not causality. Indeed, to assert a causality as the basis of human behavior is the hallmark of ideology.

The raising of a child is a parent's responsibility. Clearly, too many parents in the U.S. are doing a poor job. Progressives, liberal and conservative alike, want to push parents aside and have the government take up the burden. They are forever tinkering with rules, penalties, incentives, regulations, and laws in an effort to remake people in a fashion suitable to their idea of what society should look like. For over forty years they have been laboring at this task and achieved little. Still they persist. Just as the New Deal has become the paradigm of government intervention, civil rights laws have become the paradigm of social and cultural manipulation. But, like the New Deal, the equation is far more complex. There is no simple cause and effect when it comes to human behavior. People can be stubborn, irrational, lazy, and riddled with vice. No government will ever change that because government is a product of society and society is a product of people.

As the U.S. slowly slouches toward Babylon and a debt ridden, impoverished, poorly educated, two tiered society, people are increasingly clamoring that the government do something about it. But the government has already done something about it. It has made things worse. As Samuel Johnson once said, a thousand mice do not make an elephant. Progressives cannot craft policy for 300 million mice. They need elephants. To that end they are continually stacking mice.

In Defense of Interest Groups

With the upcoming election, fundraising is in full swing. Naturally, as candidates scramble for cash, they take care to say things they know that their supporters want to here. The more important or wealthy the industry or group, the more effort that is taken to keep it happy. This is traditionally known as politics. To some, it is known as pandering. Groups that are seen as pursuing general goods such as clean air and water are good interests.  Everybody likes clean air and clean water. Those groups and interests perceived to be acting in pursuit of their own good to the exclusion of others are called "special interests". Those who work to see that those interests are tended to are called lobbyists.

Before you condemn lobbyists and special interests keep in mind they come in all varieties. There are lobbies for children. There are lobbies for rape survivors. There are lobbies for those with leukemia, There are lobbies for business. There are lobbies for labor. There are lobbies for the environment,. There are lobbies for industry. There are lobbies for growth. There are lobbies for preservation. You name it, chances are there is a lobby for it. In the byzantine halls of Washington, if you do not have a lobby, odds are no one knows you exist. If they do not know you exist they don't care about your interests.

A law passed or regulation approved in Washington can cost and industry tens, even hundred millions of dollars. The government can encourage your industry through tax breaks and regulatory concessions. It can also constrict it and regulate it out of business. It can facilitate of your activity or it can stifle it. It can advance your cause or it can place a road block in front of it. Whatever you do or make the government can affect it. It should surprise no one that many groups seek to actively protect their interests as well as themselves and their activities from government meddling.

No one complains when a group sympathetic to their interests spends hundred of millions of dollars to advance their agenda. If a group hostile to your interests spends hundreds of millions of dollars they are condemned for seeking to bribe Washington to achieve their agenda. To call an advocacy group a "special interest" is an attempt to tarnish it by implying they are pursuing selfish ends at odds with the greater good of the nation, whatever that good might be. Is the AARP a special interest group or a lobby? That all depends on your point of view.

A special interest group is commonly construed as a group that pursues interests peculiar to itself rather than the good of all. For that reason "special interests" have come to connote selfishness and greed. Thus a group that lobbies on behalf of an industry to fend off environmental regulation is characterized as a "special interest" because it is pursuing its own good rather the good of everyone who uses the environment. Similarly, a group that pursues the interests of a particular profession are usually characterized as a "special interest" because they seek to advance the interests of that group. If you are going to call the Association of Manufacturers a "special interest" you have to be prepared call organized labor a "special interest".

Some interest groups are proud to wear the label of a special interest. That is largely because the group does not consider its ends to be at odds with the public's. Such groups exist to ensure that their objectives are being tended to They also believe that their goals are congruous with public's, or at least not in conflict. Breast cancer lobby groups rightly believe that the pursuit of their objectives in no way conflicts with any other groups objectives (except perhaps in the struggle over funding, But that is an entirely different matter.) Women free of breast cancer is good for everyone. Their interest is "special" in the proper sense of the word.

But when there are diverging interests, conflict usually arises. Environmentalists want to preserve forests. Logging companies want to exploit forests. Environmentalists want as many obstacles as possible placed in front of logging companies. If  logging companies wind up going out of business because if it, all the better. Naturally, logging companies see things differently. Because Washington can tip the scales in favor of one group or another, both are compelled to make sure their interests are represented in Washington. To do that they hire lobbyists and donate money to political campaigns. If you are an environmentalist, the logging lobby is a "special interest". If you are in the logging industry or benefit from it, it is the environmentalists that are the "special interest".

It is easy to point to an industry and or a profession and accuse it, and by extension its interests and the people hired to protect those interests, of being short sighted and selfish. Certainly there are times when that is precisely the case. But is not always the case, not by far. What is good for General Motors might not always be good for America. But what is good for General Motor can be good for the people who rely on it to make ends meet. Like much else in politics, what makes one interest special and another one not is often a matter of opinion. Before you throw the book at lobbyists stop and consider how many of the things that are important to you are represented by a special interest group.