Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002
Rush Limbaugh's Equivocation
Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.
> <HB> Rush Limbaugh is wrong when he says that the
> problem is not in "the system" but in the corruption
> of the people in it. The system of a "mixed" economy
> both selects for and fosters corruption.
> From Tom da Silva
>
> It is interesting to try to understand Rush Limbaugh's
> thinking on this (and other things)...it seems he has
> not made the obvious connection of [influence peddling
> necessitate by a mixed economy] to "the system" and
> corruption.
I listen to Rush Limbaugh on a regular basis while at work, and I believe
he (unknowingly) furnished the solution to Tom da Silva's dilemma on
Wednesday's (February 21, 2002) discussion of this problem. He doesn't see
the connection because he equivocates the difference between influence
peddling and representative government.
To quote him: "Influence peddling was the idea of the Founding Fathers --
that's what [representative] government is all about....Proper regulation
of the playing field *is* the role of the government." [Note that this
demonstrates that Rush doesn't really understand capitalism, or at least
that he doesn't argue consistently for capitalism.]
In a properly delimited capitalist government, the only job of the
government would be to protect the individual rights of the people within
that country (and outside when appropriate). The representative aspect of
electing officials, voting on laws (local, state, and federal), and being
jurors in the court system would be there so the people being governed
would have a chance to insure that this job was being done (to the best of
their knowledge). This is *not* influence peddling. Trying to get special
favors or special permissions wouldn't exist in such a government (with a
separation of state and economics), so there would be no influence to peddle.
Rush went on to discuss the meaning of "campaign finance reform" and while
he came close to getting it right, I don't think he quite captured the
extent to which modern politicians are trying to make the government of the
United States no long one of the people, by the people, and for the people
(i.e a representative government).
As is the case for the government's cry that there should be Platonic
"perfect competition" disconnected from the real market place, I think many
government officials are aiming to establish a Platonic "perfect
government" disconnected from the people it governs (and wishes to rule
over). Many political officials believe that the varying political opinions
of the populous detract from the Ideal of Collectivism on the one hand or
the Ideal of Intrinsicism on the other hand -- each of which is really the
flip side of the same false alternative coin (the voice of the people is
the voice of God versus the voice of God), since both uphold an ideal that
is not demonstrable by the facts of reality.
Deep down on the metaphysical level, neither major party considers the
individual to be fully real. The Democrats consider the individual to be
only a part of the collective, whereas the Republicans consider the
individual to be only a part of God's plan.
Of course, in this era of mixed premises, it would be difficult to find a
political official from either party that is this consistent and this
explicit, but this is what they are aiming at: Republican politicians
desire to be Philosopher Kings handing down from on high edicts of morality
enforceable by governmental law; Democrat politicians desire to be Ubermen
untouchable by concepts of Good and Evil while ruling according to their Will.
