Brain Lemon

As the health care bill was being voted on Sunday night, I looked at my mother and remarked that I was fortunate enough to be born while America was a superpower.  Though I only managed to really experience it for a couple decades, my lifetime began in the Reagan’s first term, and has included such events as the falling of the Berlin Wall, the dissolution of the USSR, and the victory of America in the Cold War.  While I was growing up, the world seemed to revolve around America.  We were so much richer, more powerful, and more influential than any other power.

Unfortunately, such good times must come to end it seems, and the events of Sunday night, and Obama’s subsequent signing of the bill today, surely must mark some turning point.  We have been on this path for some time but the health care bill truly marks a new era in our history, one in which government will play a huge role in nearly every aspect of life.  Already unsustainable entitlement spending will continue to explode even further, meaning other areas, most crucially defense spending, will have to suffer.  This is all intentional – the architects of this bill fully know that it will reduce American influence, cripple us economically, and change the character of the American people.  That’s the whole point.

In light of this, then, I see no way that today’s children, including any I may have in the future, will grow up in an America similar to mine in any respect.  The nation they experience will still retain some vestiges of our former greatness, but at the core of it will be a people that has been lulled into dependency and weakness.  Unable to project force around the world in any meaningful way, they will live in a country that has a limited role in the world.  They will experience all of the wonderful things Europeans are living now – declining population, a stagnant economy, a lack of any real drive or innovation, and a government that has come to involve itself in every part of life.

Sadly, I don’t see much hope of this really changing.  Now, some of my fellows will balk at that, saying that if the people come together and fight for American greatness, that we can restore it.  While we may make some progress, we must face the fact that a sizable portion of the country either does not care about, and may even support, some of these changes.  The Democrats have a huge factor in their favor – once a new entitlement takes root, it is nearly impossible to stop.  This is why they wanted this bill so badly – it is truly a game changer, and barring unprecedented electoral victories in the next few years, a giant new middle-class welfare system will go into effect.  Once it has, we are essentially finished as a great power.

As Mark Steyn points out in this excellent piece, it isn’t likely to be pretty.  The powers that are rising to replace America are nothing like us.  If counties like China assume our role in the world, the planet is sure to be less free.  In history ours truly is an exception – a superpower that still retains some humility and a love for freedom.  China has none of that, and even a place like India, a former British dependency, has no tradition of liberty that comes close to ours.  In short, the coming world is a scary place, where much of the safety, freedom, and prosperity we have taken for granted is by no means permanent.  We will no longer have a vibrant, strong America to protect them.

All of this is depressing, but it’s also true.  And for this, I offer our apologies to future generations.  We had a great run, but we fell asleep, and let people like Obama and Pelosi gain power.  We became complacent and lazy.  We forgot our history and our country’s founding.  And it is on our watch that freedom lost its greatest defender.

Amongst all the comments about Harry Reid’s gaffes, the other big news in the world of Twitter and the blogs is the fact that Scott Brown, Republican candidate to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts, raised over $1M in 24 hours.  Polls over the weekend showed him neck-and-neck with his opponent Martha Coakley.   While many other polls have shown Coakley with a sizable lead, the closeness of the one provided a massive boost to Republicans hoping to shock Democrats and take over a very safe seat.  Conservatives and other activists have rallied to Brown’s cause, hoping that a victory would shatter the 60-vote majority needed to pass the ugly beast known as ObamaCare.

Now, the truth is Brown likely won’t win, though it may be closer than Democrats would wish.  And even if he did, Democrats have promised not to seat him until after ObamaCare comes to a final vote, if they can manage it.  So in reality the hopes for taking the 41st seat and killing ObamaCare are slim.  But the reaction from conservatives is the real story here.  Facing the seemingly insurmountable task of turning Ted Kennedy’s seat red, and a less than ideal candidate, money and support have been pouring out for Brown.  The “tea party” engine has been turned on in this freezing January and is helping push out the votes for the mid-winter special election, generally a very low-turnout affair.  Democrats in turn have gone full-bore for Coakley, producing some very nasty ads.

I think this distills a major decision for tea party activists, and one it appears they are making correctly.  Brown is far from being a pure-bred conservative – among other things, he is pro-choice – but he seems to get the idea that opposing big government is the right course.  True hard-core conservatives could find plenty of other things to not like about Scott Brown, but the point is this – the movement, by and large, has decided that the most important thing now is not Roe v. Wade (which isn’t coming up to a vote any time soon) but fighting Obama-style massive government.  They made the correct decision on another important case, in rejecting Dede Scozzafava, a figure so far from resembling anything like a Republican that she ended up endorsing the Democrat.  There is a line to be drawn, for sure, and for now it appears the tea partiers are making the right one.

More choices like this are surely on the horizon.  And thus distills the constant battle many of us endure, as people who stand on the ideological end of the GOP, calling ourselves libertarians, conservatives, or whatever other label one might use.  The temptation will always be there to swallow the establishment line and support the machine candidate, even if he stands for nothing.  I believe such is our choice in the upcoming Pennsylvania gubernatorial primaries, in choosing between mediocre “party” candidate Tom Corbett and principled conservative Sam Rohrer.  It’s my hope we will choose wisely there and elsewhere.  But at the same time, we mustn’t be too purist either.  We can’t kick someone out just for being pro-choice or supporting civil unions.  We’ve got to stand for something and be rational at the same time.  If we do so, we can restore responsible leadership to Washington.

Hello all, to the new and improved Brain Lemon!  The new site comes with a number of benefits, including a new domain name, superior WordPress hosting, and hopefully more reliable uptime.  TypePad did its job for a while, but eventually I grew tired of paying $9/month for an inferior blogging platform that was down many times.  The new format gives me much more control while still being easy to use, and will save me money to boot.

I will be writing on this blog more frequently as I try to establish a place to come and discuss the issues of the day in a respectful, reasonable manner.  To this end I am planning to launch a new website, though a time horizon for that is unclear as I am still in the planning stages.  My hope is to create a forum for those who favor a reason-based approach to politics and the world, and who wish to meet others sharing that view, as well as debate those who disagree.  My feeling is that any number of positions can be reached by each person’s own internal logic.  The point is to understand the logic of both your views and others.

I hope this blog is enjoyable.  I may decide to turn the previous domain, www.brianlehman.net, into a separate blog but only time will tell about that.  In the meantime, enjoy the new, and soon to be much improved, BrainLemon.com!

Without a doubt, Glenn Beck has been an important figure in recent times.  He can fairly be credited with strongly supporting the tea party movement, helping to fight ObamaCare, and taking on a number of radicals and corrupt officials in government.  Surely, he has become something of a banner carrier for hordes of disaffected, freedom-loving Americans, myself included. Some developments, though, have got me seriously thinking about who this man actually is.  Not his sincerity, but rather his methods and behaviors.

For one, Glenn has always been a passionate guy who can tend to get emotional at times.  For a while this was just one facet of his persona, and it made his discussion of intense issues, like his past or his special needs daughter, all the more genuine.  Lately, though, you can count on Glenn to start breaking up just about every time he talks about America or the founding fathers.  The other day, he started losing it just talking about reading Thomas Jefferson.  Needless to say, 9/11 made him a mess, which is perfectly understandable.  The other times, though, have got me thinking that either it is an act, or this man is seriously unstable.  I can't imagine trying to talk to him.  If I met him I'd be tempted to insult the Constitution or Benjamin Franklin just to see him weep.  I seriously think he might.  Or if he didn't, he would prove that it was all an act.  It's really a no-win situation.

That tendency, in fact, brings up the other main area that has been bothering me about Glenn.  He has always been a religious man, which is fine, regardless of my feelings about Mormonism.  Increasingly, though, nearly everything he talks about has taken on a religious feel.  He reveres the founding fathers as virtual gods, and talks about the Constitution as being "divinely inspired."  His method for dealing with our present crisis?  Getting on your knees and praying.  Only then will we defeat the forces of evil (literally, he calls them evil) and witness "mighty miracles."  For someone who is not especially religious, all of this can get pretty damn uncomfortable.  What am I, and thousands of others like me, supposed to do if we don't pray or go to church?  Are we hopeless, Godless heathens who are powerless to do anything?  Is that really the only thing we can do, sit around and beg God to save us?

All of this points to what I believe are core questions about Glenn.  Is the man a suitable leader for me and all the other people who love liberty but don't share his religious views or emotional nature?  Is he in fact putting on an act, or is he being genuine?  If he is being serious, is he really psychologically healthy?  And with all of this considered, should conservatives and libertarians continue to support him, or does there come a point where we realize that he is too dogmatic, unstable, or fake to listen to?  I'm not saying I'm anywhere near that point… but I do want to figure some things about about this man.  I think we should be constantly perspicacious regarding who we follow and support.  For all of Glenn's great qualities, I think we have to take an objective look.

Driving home today, I had the thought that there are basically four types of people.  Obviously this is a generalization of sorts, as any categorization is liable to be, but I think it sums up the main types you deal with in the political world.  This system stems from what I believe to be the fundamental conflict that divides our political views.  That is, the conflict between freedom and control, between liberty and equality, between individualism and collectivism, or one of many other formulations.  Using these two competing forces, four types are created, which are detailed below.  In this list, the first term describes how people wish to be treated, i.e. the conditions under which they wish to live.  The second describes how people wish others to be treated, i.e. how the government/state should treat them.

Freedom/Freedom – This would describe me, and many others described as libertarians, classical liberals, and some conservatives.  These are people who generally like to be left alone, and thus largely favor a limited government and minimal social controls.  They also would like others to be free, and are willing to accept that this means others will do and say things objectionable.  Clearly there must be limits and laws, but by and large "live and let live" is the motto here.

Freedom/Control – This describes a lot of liberals, as well as some conservatives.  These people wish the enjoy relative freedom on their own, but want the government to exert control over "other people" by means of things like progressive taxation, redistribution of wealth, social controls, etc.  The liberals that fit here are largely the "progressive" types who have no problem succeeding on their own, but resent the success of others.  Think people like Micheal Moore, or even Barack Obama, who enjoy living luxurious lives but also long for government control of the "little people."

Control/Control – These people are the rest of the liberals, as well as the remaining conservatives.  They desire a strong structure in their own lives, or they desire much to be provided to them by the government and others.  They are sometimes willing to accept dependence and even virtual slavery if it means a more comfortable life.  Many Obama supporters fit this description, as does anyone who favors an expansive welfare state with many entitlements.  These people often also wish to impose their preferences on others.

Control/Freedom – I don't know how many people fit here.  I suppose they would be those who wish to be controlled themselves, but see no reason why others shouldn't be free.  Most people who wish to be controlled think control is good in general and should be imposed on everyone the same.

Clearly some groups can fit into two or more categories.  Social conservatives are one such group that comes to mind. Some simply live life as they choose but accept the rest of the world doing its own thing, while others are more control-oriented and wish to see censorship and social controls.  They thus can fit into both Freedom/Freedom and Freedom/Control.  Liberals in general favor control of others, and thus would fit into either Freedom/Control or Control/Control.  Average moderate types would probably fit in between groups.  But largely, the end result is that some people are simply inclined to individualism and freedom, even if it means they have to take responsibility, while some value comfort and security even if it means they lose freedom.  Similarly, some see government as a necessary evil, and others see it as a tool for social engineering.  Both of these traits speak to a person's basic conception of government and their relationship with it.

For anyone still reading this, I wanted to post and give an update on this blog and its future.  Firstly, I am planning on buying the domain brainlemon.com and switching the site over to that address.  Secondly, I am planning on actually promoting the blog once I have established it as an identity of its own, rather than being directly tied to my name.  Finally, I am planning on updating it more frequently.  I have no shortage of posting ideas, just the effort needed to actually write them up.

I'm hoping to make this blog something worth reading.  I am itching to get involved in politics more and I'm hoping this will help make that more possible.  I know every blogger in the world believes this, but I actually have some reason to believe that I have something to contribute to the community.  Or at least, I want to see if that's true!

I don't know if I should be depressed or self-satisfied, but President Obama so far has behaved exactly like we feared.  I honestly had some hope for him after his first few appointments, but thus far those hopes have been dashed by his numerous predictable, but nonetheless very troubling, actions.

For one, he has wasted no time in going after his critics, especially in talk radio.  Democrats have eagerly attempted to isolate, ostracize, and shut up Rush and his conservative brethren.  Obama's own goals on the White House website include imposing new rules that would serve to vastly weaken the talk radio format.  In the name of "unity," Democrats have demanded that Republicans sit down, shut up, and go along with whatever they want to do.  Whenever they don't, it is referred to as "divisive" and "politics as usual," even when they have legitimate questions.

Obama has also attempted, in just the first two weeks of his presidency, to pass a spending bill so loaded with pork and excess as to be mind-boggling, all in the name of "stimulating the economy."  In fact, the disgusting bill that just recently passed the House (with not a single Republican vote, I might add) will do nothing to help the economy and saddle future generations with over a trillion dollars in debt to fund a whole collection of liberal priorities. 

Finally, Obama has taken the expected positions on national security and abortion.  Closing Gitmo without any serious plan for the terrorists there is reckless and naive, and shows that this new administration does not believe we are at war.  And Obama's actions to force public funding of abortions will ensure that even more "unwanted" babies are terminated.

Thus, I would have to say that so far Obama is behaving just as feared.  If he continues tacking to the far left on every major issue we are in for some truly scary times.