Rush Limbaugh Proves Why the Government Should Leave Us Alone

Rush Limbaugh has provided us with yet another reason why government should stay out of making decisions for individuals. In a recent flap over contraception, Limbaugh referred to Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke as a "slut" because of her desire to speak to a congressional committee on the merits of contraception (she was not allowed to). Limbaugh crossed a line—thankfully, after demurring, he apologized.

But the problem is not so much what he said—although shameful is the only way to describe it—but the firestorm and divisiveness that resulted. Limbaugh gave Fluke a national platform. Obama, in his usual arrogant way, thought that somehow his presence in the fiasco was warranted and jumped into the middle of a public fight between two private citizens. (The story of the "beer summit" between Henry Louis Gates and the Boston police officer, James Crowley, comes to mind, but Obama's swagger is another topic.) GOP presidential candidates had to distance themselves from his remarks. Organizations and legislatures changed their policies. The right marshaled or had to play defense. Suddenly, society is divided, screaming at each other over personal decisions.

And what is the cause of all this? Well the government of course. Its desire to meddle in the private decisions of individuals creates huge incentives for individuals to battle each other over how these top-down regulations are determined. It is divisive. While there are many problems with government meddling in the private sector, the one most evident in this fiasco is that government control prompts individuals and interest groups to struggle over the content of government decisions. By creating and controlling a monopoly power over a decision that will affect everyone—in this case, every American will have to pay or not pay for contraception—the government establishes an immediate battleground for unlike-minded individuals to struggle in favor of their perspective.

Suddenly, private decisions become very public ones, where advocates are either talking about their propensity to need birth control or how heinous and cruel contraception is. But the truth is, that in the public sector, this debate should not matter. One need not care or be bothered by his neighbor's decision to use or abstain from contraception.

One need not agree with the Catholic Church's stance on birth control to be in accord with the argument that the government should not interfere in individual's decisions on whether to pay for it or not. Americans should be as opposed to the government forcing individuals or private institutions into paying for contraception, as they should be opposed to the government prohibiting the sale of such devices. The point is: individuals should  have the right to make these decisions on their own, without having to justify their reasons, logic, or beliefs.

By interfering in these private decisions, the government only creates new sources of tension in society. It tries to force a disparate and diverse nation to hold one set of values or one set of beliefs. That is not only not achievable but pulls at the very fabric of social cohesion. We need not agree with our neighbors, but we also need not try to force them to conform to our beliefs. The less the government tries to push Americans into a one-size-fits-all mold, the fewer issues we will have to fight each other for control over. Congressmen should not be hearing testimony about a law student's beliefs on contraception. Pundits should not be calling people uncouth names. Presidents should not be meddling in private scuffles. And the government should not be deciding what is "right" or "wrong" for the individual.

The Privilege of Being American

In today's Wall Street Journal, Lawrence Lindsey, a former Federal Reserve governor and adviser to George W. Bush, wrote an interesting op-ed, refuting Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner's argument that it is a privilege to be an American and thus, by extension, the richest should pay more taxes. Lindsey's argument is worthy of reprinting in-part.

Last week Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said that the "most fortunate Americans" should pay more in taxes for the "privilege of being an American." One can debate different ways of balancing the budget. But Mr. Geithner's argument highlights an unfortunate and very destructive instinct that seems to permeate the Obama administration about the respective roles of citizens and their government. His position has three problems: one philosophical, one empirical, and one logical.

Philosophically, the concept that being an American is a "privilege" upends the whole basis on which America was founded. Privileges are things granted to one individual by another, higher-ranking, individual. For example, in my house my children's use of the family car is a privilege. One presumes Mr. Geithner believes that the "privilege" of being an American is granted by the presumably higher-ranking, governing powers that be.

This is an age-old view that our Founding Fathers rejected. First, they argued that the basic rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (i.e., economic liberty) were natural rights, endowed by our Creator, not by government. Second, the governing powers do not out-rank the citizens. Rather it is the citizens who grant government officials their "just powers." As Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, governments are instituted among men based on their consent in order to secure the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The notion that a governing authority grants privileges to those it governs directly contradicts Jefferson's declaration.

...

This philosophical point is fundamental. But even if you accept Mr. Geithner's case that the well-to-do must pay more for their presumed "privilege" of being governed, his story ignores the empirical fact that they already do pay a record share of income taxes, even relative to their share of income. According to the Census Bureau, the share of income received by the top 5% of American households is now 21.5%, up from 21.4% in the 1990s. Their share of income taxes has risen to 59% under President Obama from 52% under President Clinton. This despite the fact that the top tax rate was five points higher in the Clinton years.

If you go further back to the pre-Reagan days, when the top tax rate was 70%, the story becomes even more dramatic. Under the four presidents of that era, the income share of the top 5% was 16.8% and their share of the income tax was 36%. In other words, the share of income received by the top 5% has risen 28% and their share of income taxes has risen 64%.

Stated differently, based on the data provided by the Census Bureau and the Internal Revenue Service, the relative tax burden of the top 5% of American earners compared with the remaining 95% has grown from roughly three-to-one prior to 1980 to almost six-to-one today.

One can always argue that this ratio should be 10-to-1, that the "privilege" of being governed is worth 10 times as much per dollar of income to someone who is rich than to someone who is middle-class. Once we give up our moral compass of government deriving its powers from the people. we must also give up any empirical compass of how much we must surrender to government. When you begin the argument that being a citizen is a "privilege" for which one should pay ever more, you very quickly find yourself on Friedrich Hayek's "Road to Serfdom."

This brings us to the third problem with Mr. Geithner's argument, a fundamental logical inconsistency. If being governed, or over-governed, is a privilege for America's citizens, shouldn't everyone pay for the privilege? Why are more than half of all American workers paying nothing at all in income taxes? And if the issue is the need to "pay more" for our privilege, why should only those making over $250,000 be the ones who pay more? If being an American really is a privilege, then certainly all who are thus privileged should pay something.

Still, the real problem with this whole privilege argument goes back to what the Founding Fathers were thinking. Being an American is a right, not a privilege. The privilege belongs to those who are temporarily allowed to serve this great nation in a decision-making capacity. When they turn this privilege into a right to distribute government largess in ever larger quantities—and in ways, to use Jefferson's phrase, a "wise and frugal government" would not—it is those in government, and not the governed, who bear the responsibility for our budgetary problems.

A Fair Compromise?

The Obama administration seems to think it has a winning formula in its ill-handled contraception fiasco. Having previously refused to exempt religiously-affiliated organizations from providing contraception through their insurance programs, Obama claims to have accommodated these organizations with a new ruling. The new compromise purportedly exempts religiously-affiliated organizations, but not their insurance providers. Specifically, these institutions no longer need to provide healthcare plans that contradict their beliefs; however, the insurance provider is required to offer supplemental riders, free-of-charge, to any insured policyholders who want to have these services.

The "compromise" is, bluntly, asinine and economic nonsense. It is a political dressing-up of the same program, meant to confuse opponents through a veil of economic subterfuge. The Wall Street Journal outlined the argument well:

...[Y]ou almost have to admire the absurdity of the new plan President Obama floated yesterday: The government will now write a rule that says the best things in life are "free," including contraception. Thus a political mandate will be compounded by an uneconomic one—in other words, behold the soul of ObamaCare.
...
Insurance companies won't be making donations. Drug makers will still charge for the pill. Doctors will still bill for reproductive treatment. The reality, as with all mandated benefits, is that these costs will be borne eventually via higher premiums. The balloon may be squeezed differently over time, and insurers may amortize the cost differently over time, but eventually prices will find an equilibrium. Notre Dame will still pay for birth control, even if it is nominally carried by a third-party corporation.

Fortunately, many opponents of this ruling have not been duped by President Obama's and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius's twisted logic. They correctly stand firm against the attempted gross encroachment into the private lives of individuals. GOP Presidential candidate Rick Santorum summed it up best, "It’s not about contraception.... It’s about economic liberty."

Government Healthcare Interferes in Private Lives

Many are outraged at the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) recent decision to force religiously-affiliated organizations to provide reproductive and preventative services without co-pay or deductible, as required under the new Obamacare law. HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius announced that while synagogues and churches would be exempt from the rule, other religiously-affiliated organizations, including non-profits would not be. Religiously-affiliated organizations, however, were provided an extra year to prepare for implementation.

This decision has highlighted the excessive overreach of Obamacare into the private sector. The law is facilitating gross interference in the private lives of individuals beyond what is appropriate for government involvement. It not only gives the government an undue amount of arbitrary coercive power, but greatly impedes the ability of the individual (person and organization) to choose their own way of life and even make their own mistakes.

Many religious leaders have spoken out quickly and decisively on the ruling, arguing that it forces them to provide for services, such as the morning-after pill, that challenge their personal and religious beliefs. The archbishop of New York, Timothy M. Dolan said "In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences...."

This is not a commentary on the wisdom of providing or not providing contraception. The issue at stake here is not whether these religious groups and leaders are right about the provision of these services—if one can even make the claim that there is a "right." Instead, it is about whether individuals and private organizations should have the right to choose the services they provide to their employees and the manner in which they conduct their operations.

Private bodies should not be forced, by the government, to behave in certain ways because some, who happen to be in power, believe that one way or another is a better way to conduct one's live. The wielding of such power by the government moves far beyond the pale of the proper role of government and descends towards a dangerous tyranny. While the government certainly has to make laws and use coercive power to alter the individual's behavior in some instances, there is a wide gap between, for instance, preventing murder or theft, which essentially protects one citizen from another, and forcing citizens to provide services or goods to others when the provider (and possibly the recipient) objects and the recipient can obtain these services elsewhere if they so desire.

By allowing the government to inflict such arbitrary and minute decisions on the lives of private organizations, Obamacare has ventured too far into the realm of totalitarian control. The rule has offered no clear delimitation of what is appropriate and what is inappropriate intervention in the private sector, relying upon a perspective of government that essentially allows any meddling if some policymaker believes the outcome would be "better." An argument that science or policy deems such practices better (even if true) is not sufficient to warrant government control.

The proposed alternative, exemptions, as provided to houses of worship, are not a fair or appropriate remedy. Everyone must be treated the same under the law. Allowing some to avoid following a law because of personal reasons relies upon the same arbitrariness that should not be present in legislating and government rule-making. Why, one must readily ask, should religious objections be acknowledged but not other personal or economic ones?

The truth is that the government has no business in deciding what employers should provide in terms of healthcare and reproductive services. There is certainly a worthy debate to have over merits of providing birth control—a debate that would most likely be lively and impassioned. But it is a debate that should happen in the social sphere not in the government. It is a debate that will ebb and flow as social values and mores change, as people, for instance, choose to associate and work for organizations that provide or refuse to provide benefits that coincide with their personal beliefs. But it is not just for coercion to be used to force some to adhere to the beliefs of others.

The "Right" Way to Look at Proposition 8

Supporters of gay marriage were handed a broad and sweeping victory in California earlier this month when Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8 – a voter-initiated state constitutional amendment that banned gay marriage. While many on the right immediately reacted in protest, the ruling gives much reason for conservatives to reevaluate their stance and ultimately their politics in a fashion that is more consistent with their professed principles.

Much of conservative thought is grounded in the conception of individual liberty. Individuals have the natural right to be free from oppressive arbitrary coercion. While such liberty may result in some individuals choosing to live lifestyles that others may find objectionable, ultimately a principled conservative realizes that using the tools of government to force compliance with one particular way of life or discriminate against those who do not conform is unjust.

While most conservatives rightly uphold this principle, it far too often falls to the wayside when certain lifestyle choices come to the fore – in this instance gay marriage. Regardless of how one perceives a homosexual lifestyle, the concept of individual liberty cannot condone interference in such personal choices. Every individual should have the right to choose their life-partner and be treated equally under the law.

At the same time as ignoring this fundamental principle of conservative thought, many conservatives rely on the “family values” argument to bolster their position. However, anti-gay policies miss the true importance of family values. Not only does this distort what is truly worthwhile about family values, but it helps foster a counterculture that is unnecessarily opposed to such meaningful values.

The object is to recognize what “family values” are. The simplistic construct that family values represent a husband, wife, 2.4 kids, a picket fence, and a dog is meaningless. True family values are about a small social group – the family – that is built around the ideals of commitment, mutual support, responsibility, duty, and a number of other important attributes. In this sense, it is obvious that a family is much more than a husband and wife. In reality it has no relationship with the identities of the family members but has everything to do with the values the family members share and their treatment of each other.

A good family – which serves as the basis of American society – needs to possess these qualities regardless of its member’s genders or sexual orientation. Conservatives, far too often, seem to miss this simple, yet significant point. The GOP’s focus should be on building strong family values, not on bashing gays. By developing initiatives that teach the worth of commitment, communication, and responsibility, conservatives will be able to strengthen the family unit and help Americans learn how more successfully engage their loved ones.

There are many gays who would and do accept such values as their own (some in much better fashions than their heterosexual counterparts); however, the insistence of the right on linking “family values” with anti-gay policies not only tarnishes the associated values but breeds a guilt-by-association phenomenon. As a result, the baby is tossed out with the bathwater, as many dismiss everything that is good with family values in favor of a hedonistic counterculture that is destructive to the American way. While such a libidinous lifestyle is often associated with homosexuality, this needn’t be the case. Such a life is built in the rejection of family values, not the sexuality of the individual (after all there are many heterosexuals who live a counterculture lifestyle and many homosexuals that don’t). Smart conservatives should focus on separating the issues of individual sexuality from family values.

While conservative intolerance towards gays certainly does not compel every homosexual into an alternative lifestyle, it does repel a large majority from a political party that would otherwise be a natural fit. These imprudent policies unnecessarily shrink the base and handicap Republican efforts at bring about meaningful policy changes. The GOP needs to drop its foolish and losing anti-homosexual policy stance and embrace the fundamental principle of liberty that is so appealing to America. This will not only draw those that are ideologically similar back into the fold but reaffirm the commitment to true individual liberty and family values.

The Religious Assault on Liberty: When Religion Coerces the Individual

Secularism-as-a-religion is by far not the only threat to liberty. Religion too can mount insidious molestations on freedom. In the newest incarnation of the Muhammad cartoon uproar, Comedy Central’s South Park, which offers puerile but wickedly intelligent social commentary on a ‘nothing is sacred’ basis, has been under attack. Creators, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, have received loosely worded death threats for their portrayal of Muhammad – a sacrilege for many Muslims.

The threats have prompted increase police security and an unfortunate back-down by Comedy Central, which censored the cartoon. As has been discussed on ANR before, such kowtowing to radical demands is foolhardy.

At the base of the debate comes the value of the individual’s or the group’s rights. Like the radical secularists in France who are attempting to ban the burqa, the radical Muslim’s here are drastically encroaching on the right of the individual to behave as they see fit. The claims of sacrilege and a religion’s right to not be insulted are a group’s claim that attempts to subordinate the individual to the power of a few elite. In this case, the elite is the fundamentalist Islamist leadership which has determined what constitutes ‘correct’ in the eyes of their creed.

The desire to oppress the individual in the name of religion is a pernicious aim that has far too often claimed victims over the course of history. Religion, like any other influential grouping of people, should have no special rights over the individual. Each man or woman should be free to choose how to associate with others, as long as such associations do not have destructive effects on third-parties. However, such associations should have no rights to force others to adhere to their voluntarily agreed upon memes.

As offensive as South Park may or may not be, groups do not have any special privilege to not be offended. By calling for such special treatment, fundamentalist Muslims are only deepening the cultural divide and severely trampling on the fundamental rights of man. They should accept the fact that coercive force will never convince the alleged offenders to toe the line. Instead, they should work to educate others about their beliefs and affirm their own convictions regardless of what occurs in the ‘outside’ world.

The Secular Assault on Liberty: When Secularism Becomes a Religion

Secularism can sometimes go too far and, in contrast to the notion of separation of church and state, become a ‘religion’ unto itself. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has recently crossed this line by deciding to submit a bill to parliament that would completely ban religious dress, particularly the Muslim burqa, in public. The expressed reasoning behind the ban is that such clothing is oppressive to women, and therefore unwelcome in France.

This is not the first time Europe’s intense secularism has come into conflict with the religious immigrants who have yet to fully integrate into Western society. Much of Europe has attempted to browbeat the newcomers into the European mold. France’s newest proposed ban follows a similar restriction, enacted in 2004, on religious symbols in the classroom. While ostensibly targeted at all – Jewish, Muslim, and Christian – symbols, it has predominantly been used to target minority symbols. Likewise, Switzerland recently voted in a popular referendum to outlaw the construction of minarets on mosques.

At the base of all these policies is a deep fear about the changes to European society that may result from the rapid growth of the Muslim population. Not only are waves of immigrants reaching Europe’s shores, but the current Muslim population is growing at a brisk rate while the ‘native,’ Christian European population is ageing. While Europe may have much to fear in the changing demographics, the attempt at forced conversion to the secular religion is a miserable policy.

On the surface, it simply makes Europe look bad. Foreigners correctly perceive these supposed bastions of freedom as intolerant. These policies anger the populations of Muslim-majority countries and create diplomatic stresses with their leaders. Domestically, minorities become alienated, causing them to turn to the very religious institutions that European seculars are trying to eradicate. Rather than drawing isolated Muslim immigrants into the European fold, such policies lead to divisiveness. In response, many find strength in identities that may have meant little to them before their government defined them as ‘the other’.

The fact of the matter is that forced assimilation is rarely, if ever, successful. Individuals do not want to be told what they can or cannot do. This is particularly true when such commands are arbitrary and have little bearing on the well-being of other individuals or society.

However, aside from being poor policy, the ban is a gross encroachment on the principles of freedom. Every individual should have the right to choose his own ways of expression – be it religious or secular. This is true regardless of whether it offends anyone else’s sensibilities. The burqa may be oppressive to women – or it may not. While ANR, as well as nearly anyone else, has its opinions regarding the vestment, it is not anyone’s place to tell another what they can or cannot do. One may attempt to persuade someone through discourse, but never through coercion. [As a point of clarity, the government should not interfere if an individual decides to wear this clothing; however, it should interfere if another (such as a husband) forces one (such as a wife) to wear this clothing against one’s will.]

Instead, Europe should attempt to bridge the gap between cultural differences by opening channels for dialogue. These immigrants should be incorporated into society by being offered the freedoms that presumably brought them to Europe – the freedoms that are not present in home countries. The separation of church and state should be encouraged whether the “church’s” doctrine is the secular, Islamic, Christian, or other. Religious minorities should be brought into mainstream, while allowing their religions to thrive in private. They should be encouraged to have multiple identities, not pushed into choosing between a secular European and an Islamist Muslim. Such a polar choice will inevitably lead some to eschew what Europe has to offer in favor of a dangerous radicalization.

A Civil Union Between Gay Marriage and Republicans

One social area where the Republican Party needs to reevaluate its stance is the issue of gay marriage. For two major reasons, the GOP is facing a losing battle. For the sake of electoral success, the party needs to reevaluate its current position.

First and foremost, the party is fighting a losing battle. It is inevitable that the rights of gays will grow over time. Currently this is occurring across many states. The inevitability is easy to see if one studies American history. Over time, all minority groups have gained more rights and equal treatment. Even if at one point or another there have been set backs, the overall trend of history is constant. The simple logic behind this is that a minority has a lot to gain by fighting for his or her rights; while relatively speaking the majority does not have a lot to lose by granting those rights. The minority will be able to fight indefinitely; while the majority will eventually tire. Ultimately, the minority will win this war of attrition.

Because of this inevitability it is fruitless for the GOP to waste its time and energy. Not only does it divert resources from other issues and causes, but it puts the party on the losing side of history. This is a cost that is too high to pay. Despite the fact the fact that it was the Republicans that freed African-Americans from slavery, the party is portrayed as the loser in the culture wars and thus, at least for the foreseeable future, precluded from the African-American vote. By fighting gay marriage, the party only provides fodder to the left to incorrectly portray the Republicans as intolerant.

Secondly, the current party stance is inconsistent with the intellectual basis of American conservatism. Conservatives call for a limited government role in the individual’s life. The government should be small and efficient, staying out of the private lives of its citizens. Unlike liberals, conservatives argue that in regards to the vast majority of issues individuals are capable of making their own decisions and leading their own lives as they see fit. However, the current gay marriage platform flies in the face of this. It calls for immense government control over a major part of many American’s lives.

Social conservatives attempt to justify this by turning to their religion and emphasizing the alleged societal costs. The ‘family values’ viewpoint asserts that gay marriage is wrong (according to the Bible) and damaging to society. Accordingly, the standard, historical heterosexual family is the basis of society and needs to continue in order to preserve the integrity and sanctity of the country. However, a modified approach to gay marriage is in no way inconsistent with the strong family values held by the majority of America. Furthermore, a modified approach would be more intellectually consistent with limited government conservatism.

An easy solution would be for the Republican Party to separate the issue of marriage into its two natural components: ceremonial marriage and legal rights. One of the roots of the current problem is that these two issues are intermingled. A logical Republican alternative would be to remove the state from any sort of marriage. If marriage is truly a spiritual and community-based institution it should be left to the churches, mosques, synagogues, and other religious organizations to decide how it functions. What is left is the legal rights component; something that is naturally a function of the state.

Essentially, this allows the state to only play a role in determining the legal rights and obligations of an individual in regards to his or her partner. Everyone can get a civil union from the government- where they can choose one partner with whom they can file taxes, receive employment benefits, make health decisions and the like. The spiritual institution of marriage is then left for private communities and religious organizations to determine.

Critics will claim that this issue can’t be easily compartmentalized in this fashion. The strongest arguments point to supposed societal damages caused by gay partnership. Specifically, raising children is one main issue. However, there are two flaws with this argument. First, many of these rights are already given to gays. For instance, they can often adopt. We have yet to see a breakdown of society or a pervasion of the younger generations as a result. Secondly, there are much broader problems with the American family than sexual orientation. Divorce rates are astronomical and many parents do not have a clue how to raise children. Republicans and America are better served by focusing on educating individuals on how to responsibly build a strong, morally-upright family. Right now we spend far too little time learning about family, child rearing, and inter-spousal relationships – three of the most central facets of American life.

A combination of government civil unions, religious marriages, and increased education to establish strong family values will lead to a better Republican Party. With such a policy the GOP will be able to speak to a wide swath of America. Furthermore, it will maintain an intellectual consistency. Lastly, it will help develop a healthier America.