Subjugation Paranoia

It is easy but rarely wise to bank on grand, unified theories to explain human behavior. That being said, viewing most Conservative positions as stemming from "subjugation paranoia" seems to hold up. For example, I had until now viewed climate change skepticism as just that -- skepticism. But why should there be public skepticism about a topic about which 99% of the pertinent scientists agree? Is it possible that what I had seen as stubborn skepticism in the face of facts may actually be nothing but paranoia?

Conspiracy Theories, cont.

"Air Loom"
from Illustrations of Madness
by John Haslam

Continuing the subject of conspiracy theories, a seminal essay from 1964, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" by Richard J. Hofstadter examines this aspect of American political culture and clarifies that the current climate of paranoia is an ongoing problem.

Fear of Subjugation

Credit: Shal Farley

Ron Paul's fear that the US, Canada, and Mexico will merge is just one example of the plethora of conspiracy theories floating around these days. In the past four to five years, there has been a mainstreaming of belief in conspiracies on the Conservative side of American politics. These conspiracies almost without exception involve non-Americans (with the aid of American dupes or collaborators) planning to displace or subjugate 'authentic' Americans. (See Victoria Jackson's theories for a more colorful example.) It is difficult to account for this level of paranoia on the right, since there is no obvious connection between such fears and a preference for free markets over government. Unless... belief in smaller, less-funded government is primarily inspired by fear of government oppression and not by confidence in unfettered markets. If this is correct, then most of today's Conservatism is nothing more than a paranoid fear of subjugation.

Gingrich the Liberal?

One danger of being a skilled verbal opponent is that the temptation to win the battle can damage your chances to win the war.

Credit: Pete Souza

Case in point: Gingrich 'got one over' on Romney by criticizing his tenure at Bain capital. Well... at least until you think about it for a few minutes. So, are we to interpret Gingrich as saying that sometimes free economic activity (that does not involve fraud, theft, etc.) can sometimes be wrong? Bearing in mind that the Speaker considers himself the quintessential Conservative, I think he should brush up on his laissez-faire capitalism, according to which no economic activity (barring the exceptions listed above) is per se wrong. Laissez-faire capitalism believes that unfettered markets are self-justifying and that the vicissitudes of economic activity are neither good nor bad -- they just 'are.' The results of this are that the strong survive and grow, while the weak shrivel and perish. It appears that Gingrich, through this criticism, is indeed backing away from a laissez-faire position, which puts him squarely in the moderate or even Liberal camp on this issue.

Misrepresentations notwithstanding, Liberals simply are not Socialists, but rather believe in free enterprise with some level of regulation -- the level thereof being driven by the circumstances. Liberals believe there is a morality to markets -- that whatever regulations promote a continual state of fair and open competition and provide an increasing level of prosperity to the widest swath of people are good regulations and should be implemented. Liberals also believe that entrepreneurs and others with influence over the economic lives of others should weigh more than just their own interests when making economic decisions.

I predict that Gingrich will qualify this statement if Romney makes it more of an issue. If not, then I welcome the Speaker to the Liberal side of the question.

The War in Rick Perry's Head

Credit: Sandy Wassenmiller 

Rick Perry's response to Obama's and Clinton's speeches condemning discrimination against homosexuals throughout the world is telling. The speeches both concentrated on condemning criminalization of homosexuality and violence against homosexuals. (Neither Obama nor Clinton favors same-sex marriage.) Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, and Iran all impose the death penalty for homosexuality. Homosexuality is still criminalized (usually with prison sentences of 10 years or more) throughout most of Africa, the Muslim world, and the Caribbean.

For Rick Perry to condemn Obama's and Clinton's speeches and characterize their objections as a war on people of faith is revelatory and repugnant. They are not waging war against this person of faith, because my faith tells me that Jesus would deem the punishment of homosexuals antithetical to his message: love the most 'disreputable' person you encounter as you do yourself.

The Osawatomie Speech

Credit: Lance Cpl. Michael J. Ayotte, USMC

The President made what I think is the most important speech of his Presidency so far today. Everyone should read or listen to this speech no matter whether they agree with it or not.

 
We are indeed 'all in this together.' Those among the 1% who decry the so-called 'class warfare' of the left should instead start acknowledging in their words and their deeds that we are all in this together by ceasing the actual class warfare they have been practicing -- one that is waged by securing one's own wants and needs to the utter exclusion of the needs and wants of everyone else.

Bush Under a Cloud

Credit: illuminating9_11

I just don't think that security concerns around protesters were the principal reason Bush's visit to Switzerland was canceled. He will always encounter significant protests at every public appearance he makes, particularly those outside of the US. However, I don't think that any US government would sit idly by while a former US President was arrested for actions he committed in office that pertain to his duties. Likewise, I don't think that any foreign government friendly to the US would arrest him on such charges, but would rather negotiate things out behind the scenes. So, bearing this all in mind, I think that this is just a diplomatic dance designed to make Bush feel like a pariah -- and I can't say that I am dismayed by that.

'Clarifying' the Norquist Pledge

Credit: Gage Skidmore

It truly amazes me that the Grover Norquists of the world are now being so open about their bias towards the rich. I guess that group of folks is ready to come out of the closet as being in favor of tax policy that openly and intentionally benefits those who live off of accumulated capital at the expense of those who live off of wages and salaries.

The Terror of Indefinite Detention

Credit: Shayan Sanyal

People generally pooh-pooh frightening things like indefinite detention by saying, "Oh, that wouldn't ever be misused. They're just trying to protect us against the terrorists." Why should we just 'trust' that the Government won't detain you or me indefinitely without charges or trial? If someone in the Government says that I am a terrorist, how am I supposed to prove that I'm not if I can't get a trial? (Even more importantly, isn't it the Government's responsibility to prove that I am?) I'd expect this from John McCain and Lindsay Graham -- but Carl Levin? At least Rand Paul is being intellectually consistent and opposing this vigorously.

Repealing the Affordable Care Act?

Credit: DonkeyHotey

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is slowly but surely succeeding in increasing healthcare coverage. I don't think the Republican nominee for President is going to get the level of support s/he needs from poorer white voters if s/he runs primarily on repealing the PPACA.

Robust Enough to Withstand Peaceful Protest

There really is no acceptable reason for the campus police's actions in this video.

 

Really, what would have happened if those protesters had just been left alone? Considering how peaceful these protests were, it's hard to ignore the possibility that it was the protesters' message, not their actions, that spurred the police to take such drastic action. I have to say that there really does seem to be a visceral distaste among many law enforcement personnel for peaceful protest. Sometimes I wonder if there isn't some sort of instinctive fear that pops up in those who are empowered by a societal system about those that protest against it -- almost as though once a system stops being accorded 100% deference, it is in danger of being overthrown, not just reformed. Shouldn't a system be robust enough to withstand peaceful protest?

Scott Olsen

Shame on the Oakland Police, particularly for throwing a gas canister to disperse people who were trying to attend to an injured Scott Olsen.

 

Bachmann vs. the Arab Spring

"Barack Obama laid the table for the Arab Spring." ...and she doesn't mean it as a compliment. I am almost speechless. This may be the reason her polling is in single digits.

 

Republican PR

Where are the organizers of these Republican debates finding these audience members?

Are cheering the deaths of sick, uninsured people and booing the service of gay soldiers how Republicans want Americans to think of them?

Heartlessness as a Tenet

During the discussion of the Affordable Care Act, one of the most contentious issues was the personal mandate. Indeed, that is the legal basis being used by its opponents while seeking a declaration of its unconstitutionality. Conservatives emphasized how unfair it was to force a healthy young man to pay for health insurance when the likelihood of his becoming severely ill is small.

So now let's fast-forward to last night's Tea Party debate, specifically this moment, where the death prospect of a previously healthy and uninsured young man is applauded. When such a healthy young man suddenly faces enormous medical bills due to an unforeseen circumstance, several members of the audience indicated passionately that he should die rather than receive Government assistance.

So, let's switch back to the 'unfairness' argument. If it is unfair to make a healthy young man buy health insurance, what is our attitude towards him if he doesn't and then becomes gravely ill? Was he just being irresponsible all along? If he was being irresponsible, why is it 'unfair' to make him behave responsibly? If we don't agree that he's being irresponsible, then is he just being a risk-taker, the kind of entrepreneurial risk-takers we admire in America who succeed if their risk pays off and fail if it doesn't?

Now let's switch back to the shouts of 'Yeah!' from the audience in the cited video clip. By doing so  are they saying 'He took the risk and it didn't pay off. It's bad luck, but I don't think it's my job to bail him out!' or are they saying 'He was irresponsible for not buying health insurance and so he's paying the price for it.'

In either case, what disturbs me most about this is that some Tea Party Conservatives seem to be embracing a position of heartlessness as an actual tenet of belief rather than a lamentable side effect of their beliefs. We applaud (read: encourage) heroes who rescue people who have engaged in irresponsible, reckless, or risky behavior when they are in situations of peril, e.g., those who search for a group of hikers who've gotten lost. How is rescuing someone's life by medical means any different? Are Tea Party Conservatives going to stop applauding such heroism? Are Tea Party Conservatives actually beginning to embrace Hobbes' critical view of the 'natural' life of man as "....solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short"?

This all reminds me of a great quote from the film Airplane!, where the 'James Kilpatrick' character says of passengers on a doomed flight: "...they bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash."

Bachmann and the Price of Gas

Michelle Bachmann recently promised $2/gallon gasoline when she is President. The price that she suggests isn't really the problem for me. That she implicitly asserts the President can deliver on such a promise isn't either. What is the problem is that this promise completely contradicts the basic (stated) philosophy of the Tea Party: government should stay out of the marketplace and allow it to regulate itself. The only intellectually consistent stance that any person holding such a philosophy can have with respect to the price of gas is the following: the price of gas is whatever the market will bear and government should not take any steps to influence the price of this or any other commodity.

Palin Decries Crony Capitalism

Sarah Palin reportedly is coming out against what she terms 'crony capitalism.' She even goes so far as to conclude that some political contributors might expect a return on their investment: votes favorable to their business interests. I wonder if she truly understands how far out of the mainstream of conservative thought she is on this. I will wait for a 'clarification' for a week or so, but if none is forthcoming I will laud her appropriately.

The Containment of Supply and Demand

Evidently there is a shortage of cancer drugs in the US right now and instead of a humane response, we are seeing significant price increases. The first rule of free-market economics is that the price of a product is whatever the market will bear. However, when securing a scarce product makes the difference between life and death for the consumer, this rule should be suspended: it is simply immoral for scarcity to influence the price of a life-saving product. What would we say to someone who agreed to rescue another person from a precarious situation, (a fire, drowning, etc.) only upon payment of a significant sum of money?

Tax the Poor

In the ongoing budgetary contretemps, where spending cuts are being weighed against revenue increases, the Tea Party has stood their ground against any increases in revenue whatsoever. However, it appears that in certain places on the Conservative side of the argument, revenue increases are indeed being entertained. Since fully half of the American population pays no income taxes, although many among them do pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, etc., a growing chorus of outrage seems to be swelling in favor of entertaining tax increases on this segment of the population -- the poor. When political advocacy becomes this inhumane, the only appropriate response is mockery... and none does it better than Jon Stewart.

The Daily Show - World of Class Warfare - The Poor's Free Ride Is Over
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Rick Perry and the Seven Mountains

Jefferson's concept of "a wall of separation between Church and State" benefits not only citizens, but politicians as well. Politicians' personal religious beliefs should be of no consequence to their constituents because they can't impose their religion on their constituents through the government. But what if acquiring governmental authority is actually part of a politician's religious belief system? Should citizens still consider questions about that politician's political beliefs off-limits?

Per the Texas Observer, the recent religious gathering hosted by now-declared Presidential candidate Rick Perry was peppered with speakers who advocate a worldview known as Seven Mountains Dominionism, which believes that the fundamental institutions of society (the Seven Mountains) should be taken over by Evangelical Christians in order to usher in the Millennium and the second coming of Christ.

I think we have the right to question political candidates about their religious beliefs when those religious beliefs are synonymous with their political beliefs. So, I would like to ask Gov. Perry, "Sir, do you believe that you have been called of God to become President of the United States in order to bring about the second coming of Christ?"

The Consequences of Citizens United

Because 2012 will be the first Presidential election since the Citizens United decision, we should watch the amount of money expended by corporations, organizations, and unions in favor of or opposition to candidates for office. Because corporations, organizations, and unions have as their focus a very narrow set of the needs and wants of their contributors, they further the goals of what are termed "special interests" much more than the direct contributions of individual citizens to individual candidates, both complex human beings with varied interests and goals. If in 2012 the corporate expenditures vastly outweigh the amount of money expended by individuals, we should resign ourselves to the fact that special interests are in control of American politics as a natural consequence of the freedom of speech. Consequently, instead of the Federal and state governments reflecting the needs and wants of the average American, they will instead reflect a cocktail of jockeying special interests.

Executing Bad People

This article convinces me that Rick Perry is the right President for America. Why? Rick Perry clearly believes in executing bad people, whether or not they have technically committed the crimes they are charged with. As for us Americans, we were fixated for months on the murder trial of a young woman in Orlando, certain in our guts that she was guilty because she was a bad woman, a woman who partied soon after her baby girl was dead. Our visceral distaste for her made it irrelevant that there was very little evidence pointing to her guilt and none for which there wasn't a benign explanation.

So, it seems a perfect marriage between us and Rick Perry. As he leads us into the future, we won't let facts, objectivity, and logic keep us from acting upon what we know in our hearts and guts to be true.

Bachmann’s J. Steven Wilkins Problem

This article reports a dismaying association between Michelle Bachmann and J. Steven Wilkins, the author of a biography of Robert E. Lee that makes disgusting assertions about the relationship between slaves and slaveholders in the antebellum South. Bachmann evidently promoted this book as a 'must read' on her campaign website.

So, while we spent months a few years ago fixated on the fact that Obama was a member of a church whose pastor had made incendiary comments about America, a church that by most accounts he attended rarely, we will undoubtedly spend no time whatsoever being furious over Bachmann's explicit endorsement of Wilkins' incendiary comments. Why?

There is simply a right-wing bias in our country, wherein those who go too far rightward are just over-indulging their essentially decent 'American-ness,' but those who go too far leftward are exposing their basic indecency, untrustworthiness, and 'un-American-ness.' Until and unless Bachmann's association makes her just as much (or more) an object of suspicion as Obama's association, I don't think we as a society will ever get back on the narrow road to righteousness.

Mandatory Voting?

When I encountered the statistic that only 37% of eligible voters cast votes in the 2010 election, I started to feel that may be the principal reason we are encountering such dysfunction in Washington. When the only people who vote are those with an axe to grind or an interest to preserve, we shouldn't be surprised when our legislature reflects that. The only solution I can see is to require all eligible people to vote. For those who see that as an infringement on freedom, I remind you that we require people to serve on juries, under pain of imprisonment. Certainly, voting is as grave a responsibility as jury duty.

Separation of Powers = Gridlock?

After all of the mess with the debt ceiling and the current mess with the funding of the FAA, I truly think that our government is dysfunctional and that we should look at systemic reforms. This article suggests that going parliamentary may be the best way to overcome gridlock. I have no delusions that this would likely happen, but it would certainly never happen if no one advocates for it.

Meryl Streep in 'The Iron Lady'

This is an amazing few minutes of The Iron Lady. I think Meryl Streep may finally win that 2nd Lead Actress Oscar...

Charity is a Crime in Orlando

These three look pretty shady, don't they? Well, they were in fact arrested earlier this month in Orlando. You might ask for what nefarious act these three were carted off to jail? Surely, theft, violence, ... murder? Nope.

These dangers to society were arrested for feeding the homeless. Read all about it here. Tell me, who exactly is on the Orlando city council these days -- Ebenezer Scrooge? Marie Antoinette? King Herod?

Using 'Gay' Epithetically

This campaign from GLSEN raises awareness of how in the last ten years or so the word gay has come to be used to mean uncool, worthy of derision, or worthy of rejection and how destructive that usage can be. Irrespective of one's beliefs concerning the morality of homosexuality, I don't think one should use the word gay epithetically because it could cause emotional harm to someone who is either gay or wondering if they might be. Considering the ongoing fact that gay young people commit suicide at much higher rates than their straight counter-parts, I think extra sensitivity is warranted. So, when you say (or hear someone say) "Dude, that's so gay!", imagine that you're gay and how that would make you feel.

Christie, the Examplar of the New Conservatism

I think that this clip captures the spirit of the new Conservatism better than anything I've ever seen -- a Conservatism that sees reliance upon government (for anything except safety and perhaps roads) as contemptible parasitism. It is clear to me from his reaction to the woman's question that he has no sense of obligation to those who rely upon his state's government to provide a decent eduction for their children. The fact that he counters her question by insisting that he does not ask her where she sends her children to school implies that everyone in his state has the same choice he has -- that everyone can afford to send their children to private school. (The median household income in New Jersey in 2009 was $68,444 per year. [U.S. Census])  

This woman does indeed have the right to ask him where he sends his children to school because he has a profound level of control over the education of her children, while she has only her voice and her vote. Yes, he emphasizes that it is for religious reasons that he sends his children to private school, but that doesn't change the fact that he has that choice -- because he can afford it -- and that his children are not impacted by the budget cuts he is imposing on the questioner's children.  Even if Governor Christie either backs off from or apologizes for his reaction, this episode still demonstrates what's in his heart -- contempt for those who need a helping hand from their fellow citizens to educate their children and provide us all with the benefit of a well-educated populace.

Anti-Gay Illogic

Fortunately, the impartiality of Judge Ware in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger was upheld this week and the case will proceed on its inexorable route to the Supreme Court. The arguments of those who fight against the inevitability of same-sex marriage grow increasingly thin and internally inconsistent. In this case, the plaintiffs argued that because Judge Ware is gay he should have recused himself from the original trial. The problem with their logic is that during the original trial one of their principal arguments was that opposite-sex marriage is diminished by same-sex marriage, which means that any person who might participate in opposite-sex marriage would also have a vested interested in the outcome of the trial. With all gay and straight people excluded from presiding over such a trial, I'm not sure who would be left.

The Triumph of E-Books

Per the New York Post, Amazon has announced that it is now selling 5% more e-books than print books. We definitely now have a paradigm shift, not a fly-by-night fad. I not only enjoy reading books on my Kindle, I read much more than I have in the past. While printed books will always have a place as collector's items -- just like LP records -- I predict we will all be reading primarily with e-readers in about ten years.

FCC Ethics - Meredith Attwell Baker

Per Truthdig,

Meredith Attwell Baker, one of two Republican FCC commissioners, voted in late January to approve the merger of Comcast and NBC. Less than four months later, she announced that she is leaving the FCC to become a lobbyist for the merged company.

It is truly unbelievable to me that this is legal. The fact that our cynicism causes us to just let stuff like this slide as "business as usual in Washington" infuriates me. This is an equal-opportunity shame: neither party or ideology has a monopoly on being ethically challenged. We should all come together to agree that if you have made a decision as a government official that economically profits a business or organization, you should never be able to work for or knowingly own a portion of that entity -- ever.

Santorum Thinks Public Schools are Fascist

Per the Washington Monthly, former U.S. Senator and current candidate for the Republican nomination for President Rick Santorum thinks that America's public schools are vehicles for government indoctrination. How does a man with this level of paranoia garner the credibility necessary to become a serious candidate for President? I think having a debate about how education should be ensured for every child in America is a good one to have. Unfortunately, Sen. Santorum's paranoia makes the private, voucher-based position look ridiculous.

Tuning Out the Noise

I have decided to tune out more of the noise in my life. So here's how not to be noise:

• Base your opinions on all available, pertinent facts.
• Make sure your facts are indeed facts, i.e., measurably true.
• Make sure your conclusions are internally logically consistent.
• Make sure that your conclusions are consistent with those you've drawn in the past or, if not, admit it and alter the impacted conclusions.
• Do not counter arguments that no one has advanced.
• Be aware of and admit your biases.
• If you can't counter arguments that challenge yours, admit it and honestly consider conceding the point.
• Avoid ad hominem attacks.

Rush Limbaugh's Sarcasm

Credit: Nicolas Shayko

Rush Limbaugh uses filthy, nasty, sarcasm to denigrate the President's role in the killing of Osama bin Laden. Yes, at first it sounds like shockingly high praise. But as you continue to listen, it's very clear that his tone is sarcastic..

Even at a time like this, when young people are celebrating in the streets, all Rush Limbaugh has to offer us is nastiness. If you listen to him -- please, please stop.

Meyers and Trump at White House Correspondents Dinner

Seth Meyers brings the house down at the annual White House Correspondents Dinner. I'm surprised that Donald Trump actually showed up. He received the ridicule that he deserved.

Andrew Sullivan vs. HRC re. King & Spalding

Andrew Sullivan insists upon ignoring one salient fact about the so-called bullying tactics of HRC towards King & Spalding: the attorney's client is the Federal Government. An attorney that represents the Government is acting as a Government official whether they are a Government employee or a paid contractor. Is Mr. Sullivan actually saying that Government officials should not be held accountable for their impact on public policy?

When a principled lawyer defends a guilty client, he is not through his defense saying that his client's actions were acceptable. He is rather ensuring that his client interests are protected from excessive punishment or any other unjustness in the process. In short, the lawyer is defending the person -- not the action. For this reason, it is a good thing for lawyers to represent the perpetrators of even the most heinous crimes and they should not suffer for it. 

However, when a lawyer is defending the constitutionality of a law on behalf of the Government (not on behalf of some other party), the lawyer is by necessity defending the action (i.e. the law) not the person (i.e. the Government). Indeed, the lawyer is defending the law as matter of public policy. For this reason, I believe that a lawyer defending the constitutionality of an odious law does deserve scorn (and the resulting loss of reputation and business) for that defense. 

No Defense for DOMA

Ruth Marcus and the Washington Post Editorial Board evidently insist that all laws, no matter how repugnant (e.g., DOMA), deserve their day in court and a vigorous defense. (I believe this principle applies to people, but not to laws.) How far would they take this? Is there no conceivable law so repugnant that they would actually condemn its legal defense team? Not even one allowing slavery or forced abortions?

Simple and Beautiful Logic

Aah, the beautiful logic of it all: Trump is awesome for having forced the issue. Obama is nefarious for having responded. Now, I understand. The logic is so clean and clear! Why didn't I see it before? Conservative = always good and always right. Liberal = always bad and always wrong.

Trump Dogs Obama

Trump takes credit for having gotten Obama to release his long-form birth certificate. The right can't have it both ways -- either Obama was correct to release the birth certificate, or he was not. What's profoundly two-faced is to dog Obama with ridiculous rumors and then criticize him for addressing them. Trump is correct: he himself is responsible for having made this a front-burner issue -- and voters should hold him accountable for that.

Now Trump is moving on to whether Obama really earned his acceptance into Columbia and Harvard. The new mantra is "Release the Grades!" (BTW, Obama graduated magna cum laude.) In the name of all that is holy, please let us hold the Trumps of the world accountable for these distractions and stop blaming the victims of baseless smear campaigns.

Ayn Rand Would Be Proud

Source: Wikipedia

The situation in Connecticut, where a homeless woman was arrested and charged with grand larceny for sending her child to a kindergarten in another city, pretty much epitomizes the meanness of our society. I think the lack of compassion here would have put a smile on Ayn Rand's lips.

Piratism

The latest rumor about Obama is that he's actually a pirate...

Cheering for Disaster

For anyone still willing to give the Tea Party the benefit of the doubt and believe that they are small-government advocates and not anti-government advocates, I give you the following quote from an article in the Washington Post:

House Republicans huddled late Monday and, according to a GOP aide, gave the speaker an ovation when he informed them that he was advising the House Administration Committee to begin preparing for a possible shutdown.

Does one cheer for something he wishes didn't have to happen?

Beyond Belief

Every time I think I can't be surprised by the stupidity of politicians, I'm surprised again. Why oh why does Eric Cantor, the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives, think that the House can make a law all by itself? There is absolutely no Constitutional mechanism by which that can happen. Any eighth-grader can tell him that. If this is his silver bullet to get a budget passed, someone should tell him he's shooting blanks. What next? Will he be spinning straw into gold to solve our budget problems?

Is Donald Trump Really a Natural-Born Citizen?

According to this article, Donald Trump still has not provided sufficient proof that he is actually a natural-born citizen of the United States. When will he release his real birth certificate?

The First Church of Small Government

It seems that the Tea Party (and other branches of the "government is the problem" set) is showing its true colors as a movement grounded and informed by religious beliefs. As we are approaching the Presidential election season, many Conservatives are clarifying that there is no extricating of economic conservatism from social conservatism. Additionally some Conservatives are even going as far as to say that relying on government for economic assistance is a form of idolatry, in that the individual is relying on government instead of God. (Why isn't it idolatrous for the individual to rely upon government to protect against foreign invasion?)

I think I understand now why so many (I exclude here true classical liberals) believe in small government so fervently. It's truly a belief, not something that they've developed as a consistent system of thought.