Fifth Quote from Liberty and Tyranny

In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx wrote, "In the most advanced countries the following will be pretty generally applicable: a heavy progressive or graduated income tax."

The Communist Manifesto also calls, by the way, for compulsory government education. Why this--and the tax thing--doesn't scare the mess outta people, I'll never know.

Don't you understand that the idea of a progressive income tax is to punish success? To punish people for having a dollar more than what some statist, liberal, leftist, or progressive thinks they ought to have?

Order the book here.

Fourth Quote from Liberty and Tyranny

Man is more than a physical creature. As Edmund Burke argued, each individual is created as a unique, spiritual being with a soul and a conscience and is bound to a transcendent moral order established by Divine Providence and uncovered through observation and experience over the ages. "There is but one law for all, namely, that law which governs all law, the law of our Creator, the law of humanity, justice, equity--the law of nature and of nations." This is Natural Law that penetrates man's being and which the Founding Fathers adopted as the principle around which civilized American society would be organized.

The Declaration of Independence appeals to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." It provides further, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

[snip]

Some resist the idea of Natural Law's relationship to Divine Providence, for they fear it leads to intolerance or even theocracy. They have that backwards. If man is "endowed by [the] Creator with certain unalienable rights," he is endowed with these rights no matter his religion or whether he has allegiance to any religion. It is Natural Law, divined by God and discoverable by reason, that prescribes the inalienability of the most fundamental and eternal human rights--rights that are not conferred on man by man, and, therefore, cannot legitimately be denied to man by man. It is the Divine nature of natural Law that makes permanent man's right to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

You'll note a certain similarity between what Mr. Levin says here and what I've said about a bajillion times. Order the book here.

Third Quote from Liberty and Tyranny

The Statist veils his pursuits in moral indignation, intoning in high dudgeon the injustices and inequities of liberty and life itself, for which only he can provide justice and bring a righteous resolution. And when the resolution proves elusive, as it undoubtedly does--whether the Marxist promise of "the workers' paradise" or the Great Society's "war on poverty"--the Statist demands ever more authority to wring out the imperfections of mankind's existence.

You've noticed this, haven't you? People on the Left are perpetually convinced that the solution is more government. They might prefer to call it something else, like a more expanded program or something, but the reality is that if what they've already put in place isn't working, they blame it on someone somehow undermining their splendid plans and demand bigger programs, more spending, and more authority so that they can make things work better--and, of course, they seldom, if ever, actually do work better.

One of the most ironic things is the statist's, or Leftist's, pronounced tendency toward more government whilst claiming to fear right-wing totalitarianism. It's positively weird. Or pathetically blankin' stupid. Take yer pick.

Order the book here.

Second Quote from Liberty and Tyranny

In the civil society, private property and liberty are inseparable. The individual's right to live freely and safely and pursue happiness includes the right to acquire and possess property, which represents the fruits of his own intellectual and/or physical labor. As the individual's time on earth is finite, so, too, is his labor. The illegitimate denial or diminution of his private property enslaves him to another and denies him his liberty.

I have not infrequently been astonished by people that seem to think that having property is somehow evil. It's no such thing. Being able to own property is a large part of what enables a person to crawl up out of the muck and live life without having to cravenly lick the feet of those above him.

Now, There Y'Go!

I approve of Mrs. Palin's choice of reading material. Mr. Levin's book is not perfect, but it is as good an introduction to conservatism proper as we are likely to get in such a short space. I wish everyone interested in the subject would take the time to read it--and I especially wish Republican candidates and office-holders would read it, as I long ago grew convinced that most of them didn't quite "get" the true basis of conservatism.

At any rate, if I see a picture of her with a copy of The Fair Tax Book, or The Great Betrayal, my mind's made up: if she runs, she gets my vote.

Hat Tip to John Lott

A Seven-Minute Introduction to Conservatism

I was stumbling 'round YouTube and came across Rush interviewing Mark Levin about his latest book, Liberty and Tyranny.

To my delight, it proves to be about as good an introduction to conservatism as one could get in seven minutes. I'd recommend it to anyone. That is not to say that it's perfect, but for seven minutes? It's very good.

I did hear Mr. Levin utter a mild vulgarity in the middle of it. If that bothers you, consider yourself warned.

First Quote from Liberty and Tyranny

There is simply no scientific or mathematical formula that defines conservatism. Moreover, there are competing voices today claiming the mantle of "true conservatism"--including neo-conservatism (emphasis on a robust national security), paleoconservatism (emphasis on preserving the culture), social conservatism (emphasis on faith and values), and libertarianism (emphasis on individualism), among others. Scores of scholars have written at length about what can be imperfectly characterized as conservative thought.

[snip]

To put it succinctly: Conservatism is a way of understanding life, society, and governance. The Founders were heavily influenced by certain philosophers, among them Adam Smith (spontaneous order), Charles
Montesquieu (separation of powers), and especially John Locke (natural rights); they were also influenced by their faiths, personal experiences, and knowledge of history (including the rise and fall of the Roman Empire). Edmund Burke, who was both a British statesman and thinker, is often said to be the father of modern conservatism. He was an early defender of the American Revolution and advocate of representative government. He wrote of the interconnection of liberty, free markets, religion, tradition, and authority. The Conservative, like the Founders, is informed by all these great thinkers--and more.

It can be difficult to define conservatism. Mr. Levin has done about as good a job in a short space as can be done, I suppose, though his brevity almost necessarily leaves what he has to say about the various factions within conservatism something of an oversimplification. Quite a lot of conservatives will scarcely admit that a Neocon is a conservative at all (I have to grit my teeth when contemplating the idea), for example, and personally, while I think that libertarians have many ideas that overlap with conservatism, libertarianism is not really a division of conservatism. Also, I think a good case could be made for an "emphasis on faith and values" being the means of "preserving the culture," which would mean that "social conservatism" and Paleoconservatism would not necessarily be as easy to distinguish from one another as Mr. Levin might make them out to be.

I do think that Mr. Levin is right in his basic idea, though, that "There is simply no scientific or mathematical formula that defines conservatism." Conservatism, in my opinion, is more a method, more an approach to the maintenance of a society than it is a laundry-list of popular positions. It proceeds largely from certain bedrock ideas and presuppositions, but it is far more flexible in application than many of its detractors think.