What is a Liberal?

I never characterize myself as a conservative economist. As I understand the English language, conservative means conserving, keeping things as they are. I don't want to keep things as they are. The true conservatives today are the people who are in favor of ever bigger government. The people who call themselves liberals today -- the New Dealers -- they are the true conservatives, because they want to keep going on the same path we're going on. I would like to dismantle that. I call myself a liberal in the true sense of liberal, in the sense in which it means of and pertaining to freedom. -Milton Friedman

The so-called liberals of today have the very popular idea that freedom of speech, of thought, of the press, freedom of religion, freedom from imprisonment without trial--that all these freedoms can be preserved in the absence of what is called economic freedom. They do not realize that, in a system where there is no market, where the government directs everything, all those other freedoms are illusory, even if they are made into laws and written up in constitutions. -Ludwig von Mises

Does a liberal adopt the philosophy of shared responsibility propagandized by both political parties? Does a liberal encourage the word "liberal" to be redefined as "the philosophy of yielding liberties so that political power may be concentrated into the hands of a few at the expense of many?" I thought a "liberal" insisted upon breaking the chains of enslavement. Is every member of the electorate apathetic and materialistic enough to nudge the winds of politics in whatever way required to blow money in their direction by way of a vote? Is every member of society engaged in this game whereby one half conspires to steal from the other through political will at the urging of their constituents? If this is the case, how can we expect anything short of mob rule orchestrated by those few individuals most adept at thievery? Reviewing the events that sparked the current (and coming) economic collapse, is there any doubt that this, in fact, has happened?

I find it interesting that globalism, the collective mentality that insists we must depend upon distant institutions and governments for our prosperity, was the exact mentality that caused our current economic crisis...the pooling of loans to distribute risk over borders and oceans. This artificial distribution of risk dilutes accountability in economics as much as it does in morality, as participants find themselves surrounded by a community of individuals who have all passed the buck to somebody else. They couldn't imagine the possibility that everyone around them could also be morally bankrupt, and that their environment is one of collective corruption and deceit. And, that their actions are robbing the innocent (guilty of nothing but their ignorance) of their prosperity. After all these are good, esteemed, respected members of American society. If they are corrupt, America itself must have been corrupted? Is this the case? How could they have imagined the correct answer to that question?

Now, the regulators who want to place strict limits on the panicked globalist's economic agenda are held up as heroes even as those same globalists are shouting for more economic stimulus...stimulus that requires more dependency on foreign governments, subservience of our children to a mountain of debt, perpetuating the original corruption in the most extreme order possible. If a little shared responsibility allowed the conditions for global tragedy to occur, how does a whole lot of shared responsibility prevent an expansion of those conditions?

If we couldn't trust them before, why are we trusting them now?

The same populist demagogues that encouraged the deregulation that caused the problem now pass judgment on those who prospered as a result of those policies. Let's explore Barney Frank's endorsement of the policies of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac...

September 2003
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have played a very useful role in helping make housing more affordable, both in general through leveraging the mortgage market, and in particular, they have a mission that this Congress has given them in return for some of the arrangements which are of some benefit to them to focus on affordable housing, and that is what I am concerned about here. I believe that we, as the Federal Government, have probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing and to set reasonable goals. I worry frankly that there is a tension here.

The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disastrous scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the Federal Government doesn't bail them out. But the more pressure there is there, then the less I think we see in terms of affordable housing.

He was wrong. Giving unqualified borrowers money turned out to be a bad idea. Then, it created the predictable monopoly conditions as investors believed the government would not let Fanny and Freddie fail. As a result a speculative bubble appeared, then popped, then Barney decided to do what he formerly promised he wouldn't...bail them out...

September 2008
The Treasury Department intends to use the powers that Congress provided it to ensure the continued and stable functioning of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...I am pleased by the secretary's strong reaffirmation that the vital roles these institutions play in our nation's housing markets must continue.

In other words, he takes our money and uses it to save the companies that would have otherwise failed...the companies that got into trouble in the first place because of the easy-credit policies he encouraged.

Then, the company that insures these mortgages and engages in related investments, AIG, also asks for money. He takes our money and gives it to them too, although he would have taken more from us if he could have...

March 2009
I think the terrible economic situation Obama has inherited was so bad that it [economic stimulus package] could have been 20 percent bigger.

Then he expresses outrage when folks associated to his meddling are prospering as a result of his response to the AIG bailout. (When asked, he claims Bernanke strong-armed congress to push the $85 billion through using Section 13 (3) of the Federal Reserve Act, passed in 1932 by a philosophical interventionalist predecessor, Hoover). Now the public is watching, so he needs to be sure people know how outraged he is at a tiny minority who had almost nothing to do with it...

March 2009
These bonuses are going to people who screwed this thing up enormously ... Since the federal government ... now essentially owns that company, maybe it's time to fire some people.

Who is rewarding incompetence?

We are.

Barney has no choice but to be outraged if he wants to keep his job. He has basically deflated the tires on the firetruck, blamed the fire station for starting the fire, then threw a bucket of gasoline on the flames. This has been the case since the Federal Reserve Act, and persists through the likes of Mr. Frank. He does not expect the public to understand that he shares responsibility. Besides, if he can share it, why admit any at all? We'll never recognize the truth...that he caused this scenario in the first place. No, all of us are way too stupid for that...

I am sure he will express outrage the next time his policies fail as well, blaming whoever and whatever he needs to in order to pass accountability elsewhere. How could he or anyone in Washington expect to keep their jobs otherwise?

Last I checked there was not a single person in Washington or Wall Street inherently accountable for any part of this economic crisis, nor have any accepted responsibility. The moral fabric has been shredded so thoroughly by this dizzying, sickening circle of blame that it seeks to wrap ever fiber of society in its turbulent wrath. Without a place for the buck to stop these bastards want their incompetence to be diluted by the failure of not just a city, not a country, nor just a measly hemisphere...but THE WHOLE GLOBE.

There are systems of government superior to the kleptocracy ours has devolved to...

In a monarchy, there is some semblance of accountability...the monarch. And, if the king is not to blame, it is nonetheless the throne who should have been paying more attention. When their heads eventually roll (as difficult as that may be), it becomes a lesson to the next king. He might be persuaded to check on his Royal Hedge Fund managers from time to time to make sure they aren't ripping away the prosperity of his loyal subjects, lest they assemble their pitchforks.

Is Barney Frank today's knight in shining armor? This seems to be so. Maybe anyone who's intentions sound compassionate and reasonable should be rewarded for their errors until they are actually spilling loaves of bread into rivers at the end of bread lines. Their small-government "conservative" counterparts haven't done any better.

A real liberal is an individual conscious of our current condition, outraged at the shameful behavior of its beneficiaries, and disgusted at the participation/incompetence of our elected representatives. But, so is a real conservative. So, I believe a true liberal can identify the actual cause of this mess...the philosophy of shared responsibility who's thin altruistic blanket shrouds a deft minority willing and able to silently relieve the liberty and prosperity of the general population. To conquer this historic foe is and always has been the plight of the liberal. But wait, the same goes for the true conservative.

The reality is, neither conservatives nor liberals exist in our federal government. There is one common interest among almost all of our representatives, and that seems to be loyalty to the state and their own corporate sponsors. No one has the balls to stand up and say "I'll risk my job to speak the truth, expose fraud, and represent my constituents." Until we have that, we have no liberals or conservatives in government, but professional hypocrites who mock both terms.

Where does the buck really stop? I suspect there is a reasonable answer to that, although my suspicion is inappropriate to venture here.