The Conservative Brotherhood

When conservatism is discussed the phrase "big government" is often recited as a curse. Usually the reference is to the growing number of bureaucracies established to equip the government to carry out the tasks it has taken unto itself. This trend is certainly a contentious point for conservatism, but left at this simplistic and somewhat misleading point it allows many designating themselves as "conservative" to reflexively and thoughtlessly believe that "big government" is always the enemy, sub specie aeternitatis, of business. To the contrary, this encouraged fallacious belief, often disguises the fact that big government is frequently the ally, if not the servant, of big business. In my blog, "Caesar's Painted Bride" I alluded to the cozy relationship of the denizens of Wall Street with the regulatory agencies of government. Reports in various financial news sources on July 31, 2009 supported my insinuation that those former officers of Wall Street firms now serving as economic Czars in the public sector trail a distinct fishy smell. A reasonable and sober person could not be faulted for being suspicious of the institutions to which they owe their munificent personal fortunes and apparently their loyalties as well, the champions of unrestrained capitalism which they now supposedly regulate, lately at death's door and only resuscitated by the socialist infusion of public capital, paid 4,749 of their employees million dollar bonuses, 311 got five million dollars, and 47 received ten million dollar bonuses, over and above already substantial salaries. In the past I prophesied this phenomena of dollars being collected socialistically only to be transferred to the enrichment of capitalists. This generous bequest has been made possible by whom - big government!

What can be the reason the "Change you can believe in" candidate has appointed yet another Goldman Sachs executive to an official government position from whence this cabal of professional Mafioso can control and direct our national economy? As a layperson dumbfounded by the complexities of macroeconomics I am intellectually unable to see an improvement in the economic affairs of the nation that correspond to Goldman's record quarterly profit and 68% rise in its stock price. Of course it may be mere coincidence the methodology employed by our new Secretaries, Czars, and advisors has had a greater stimulus effect on Wall Street than Main Street, but in terms of public morale it is an unfortunate coincidence. Such coincidences underscore why the debate over executive compensation is more than a trivial matter. When banks and houses of finance faced imminent bankruptcy a few short months ago, necessitating nearly a trillion dollars of public bailout, and in the heat of humility excessive executive compensation was frowned upon and rejected on all fronts, they nonetheless managed to record historic profits, which they now say will be impossible to reproduce unless the greed incentive is restored. Some may enjoy this line of reasoning as reminiscent of the comedic nonsense of an Abbot and Costello routine, but in my ignorance all I see is the resuscitation of a scheme out-come designed to assure that literally billions of dollars resume their flow in the usual direction and into the pockets of the usual suspects. I once described our modern socialism as "fewer capitalists controlling more wealth". Can I get an "Amen"? Or are some still willing to mistake capitalism for conservatism?

The past week to ten days has left me mentally fatigued; not that I've been revving up my brain power attempting to unravel quantum mechanics, or understand two consecutive paragraphs of Kant, or things similarly cognitive. I have been worn out by membership in this society. I’ve been made tired trying to contemplate the many faces of Michael Jackson, from the little boy who wowed me when I was a young adult, to the nature of the enigma behind the demented clown face. It is too difficult, for me anyway, to rank the congruities of sentimentality and reality, and to be convinced it was a worthwhile investment of our vast public consciousness in these troubled times, debating if Michael Jackson was black, white, or Dorian Gray. Enough said.

The July 4th holiday apparently inspired a few people to ponder not only political freedom but the freedom, or lack thereof, circumscribed by ethnicity and history. I read blogs noting the detriments of the lingering "slave mentality" and still others decrying what they see as Barack Obama's disconnect from the ethno-political psychology of black America. By the criteria of some, the President's skin color is just irrelevant pigmentation because his African paternal DNA was never steeped in bondage, and his maternal DNA bears the taint of Caucasian. Conversely, not long ago in sociological measure, when unity was the theme, the chosen argument to rope in those thought to have a pigmented, educational, or financial advantage, thereby supposedly having an enhanced opportunity to advance individually, was the prognosis that the slightest tint of dark DNA, was the scarlet letter mandating inescapable assignment to only one possible socio-political "home" regardless of any other history, credentials, or hubris. As I recall, this line of reasoning built to the level of a mantra. A person with Obama's appearance, genetics aside, would have been castigated if he didn't voluntarily identify as "black", based not on nature or nurture, but solely on tincture. Now, he is denigrated by some, not only for the combination of DNA he possesses, but additionally because he didn't inherit and was never taught the predispositions of the slave mentality. If I were a Gulliver washed ashore and into the midst of this controversy, I would be hard pressed to know whether I should pity his disadvantages or marvel how he overcame them.

The experiment of America, as an aristocracy of merit, challenges us all. To take the idea of citizenship seriously is to approach the best understanding of individuality and the rights of man. I think that requires of us a great deal. There is only so far the offices of government should go in recognizing us as we necessarily think ourselves to be.

Many years ago, I held the somewhat common notion that the Declaration of Independence might have listed complaints against the deprivations of racial offense and become the basis of an anti-racist Constitution. The fact that it didn't suggested to me some original flaw in the founding of the nation, which a proper evolution of thought would correct. But I did all that for the purposes of the anti-racist promise, without much regard for the substance of the original complaint.

It was my hard fought intention to refrain from commenting on the death of Michael Jackson. I am convinced more words, however perfectly chosen, cannot bring any of us closer to the world he and his family inhabited. I'm sure there are among that grieving group today the fleeting desire to trade all the fame and fortune for the simple comforts of family happiness and longevity, for mediocre backyard barbeques and typical squabbles over lent money, and the pleasant frustration of grandchildren too independent for their level of maturity. They probably wish the unknowing world didn't seek profit from dissecting their grief, and think already redeemed tickets grant access to their most intimate and painful moments.

In my last post entitled, "Five Thousand Years and Holding", I made the uncomfortable (to some) speculation that the theistic beliefs held dear by many billions might become, if the carcasses littering the transit way of history are informative, another transitory philosophical vehicle doomed to quaint obsolescence by the desideratum of future ages. In a roundabout way I was asking if anything that is 'believed' by man can necessarily be outside of the ability of man to have 'conceived'. Since there is no verifiable philosophical equivalent to technology's Error Correction Codes, and the receivers of divine revelation are known to possess flaws and imperfections common among the rest of mankind, it may be acceptable to query if an unadulterated revelation could have emerged through the human filter, or if so-called revelation is actually sourced in divinity rather than being a product of human creativity fully within the potentiality of the human mind as evidenced by the colossal creative and intellectual annals sourced directly to inventive mankind. Is this line of inquiry simply a provocative thought exercise more appropriate for a forum other than "The Conservative Brotherhood"? Normally I would think so, but everywhere I look, at blogs and battlefields, I see the intertwining of religion and politics, and I find that Lucretius' outlook that religion is immoral because its superstitions concerning divine motives and meddling make men servile and miserable, isn't invalidated by evidence. I offer as a case in point a blog in the American Spectator by Peter Ferrara titled, "Obama's Iran Blunder".

Four decades ago, National Geographic magazine Vol. 135 No. 5 May 1969 contained an article that so impressed me I saved the issue and have it on hand as I write today. It was about the deconstruction and relocation of the ancient monuments at Abu Simbel threatened by rising Nile river waters behind the newly constructed Aswan Dam in Egypt. Originally erected 13 centuries before Christ as temples to the sun god Re-Harakhti and Pharaoh Ramesses II, the consequence to Egyptian and world culture was deemed so significant, the governments of Egypt and the United States principally, with assistance from UNESCO, funded the project to dismantle the gigantic structures and reassemble them on higher ground safe from the rising water. The article is less about history than the exposition of a challenging engineering feat; but even back then I thought there was a greater implication than the mechanical marvel undertaken. Although it is the hubris of our culture to discount religious beliefs not deriving their authority from the Pentateuch, it must be accepted that the site was as holy to the adherents of the contemporaneous religion, who built it, as any sites cherished by the active religions of today. A millennium of religious belief preceded and empowered its construction, even though the subsequent evolution of mankind's thoughts have since diminished it as skillful and elaborate monuments to foolishness. Its iconoclastic fate makes me wonder if our religious beliefs today have reached their final, eternal, and unalterable destination, or will our holy constructions become philosophical relics in a museum of the future? This line of thought was reawakened in me after participating in exchanges arising from a blog titled, "Obama's Inner Muslim" on a site called "The Black Sphere". The blog was the author's (Kevin Jackson) reaction to the President's speech in Cairo.