Richard's Reply

by Richard L. Hartman and Donald Silberger

Your argument continues, I believe, thus: On that -10 to +10 scale you posited, Foley's -2 position there was in fact -2 only by the scale setting of his time. That scale setting was "zeroed" in large part by the positions of long-term actual incumbents, among whom Foley was one.

A very astute way to explain this phenomenon. I hope you don't mind if I plagerize it in the future. It appeals to my technical mindset, and (startlingly) is also easy to understand.

Your idea of working for incremental changes instead of radical ones could hardly be better argued than you argued it from the hypotheses upon which you based your argument. To summarize what I hope I have correctly interpreted as your view, I believe you intended this: If a +2 incumbent will have served in office in lieu of the -2 person he replaced then the electorate will comfortably note that no earthquakes or other catastrophes resulted from that new +2 incumbency, and so they will redefine the center of the spectrum at a point actually to the right of the point at which the center was defined during the -2's incumbency, and therefore they might be willing to vote for a +4 candidate or position which in the past they may have rejected.

Your "+4" being an absolute measurement. But it appears as a +2 to the voters, because they view it as relative to the last +2 which is now considered the reference point. Yes?

A study of German history '33-'45 your strategy viewpoint. Thus, in 1935 Hitler could not have gotten away with Death Camps; in '35 he was content with quietly promoting boycotts of Jewish businesses, since the German populace was ready for a measure of that severity. It was only in the Forties that the Death Camps were put into full-scale operation.

Another excellent example. If only people didn't get after me so much for "playing the Nazi card". Unfortunately, they DO embody so many of the things against which we fight. The fact that it is within current memory, and yet people ignore the lessons there, astonishes me.

Now let me suggest where your argument misses me, not because it is poorly developed -- your arguments are always well developed -- but because part of your "model" does not coincide with mine. One way in which you and I appear to differ is in that notion of the 1-dimensional left-right political spectrum. You may consider yourself a "rightist". I in fact consider myself neither a rightist nor a leftist. Where does that put me? In the "center"? Hardly.

No, not in the center. Neither on the left nor the right. At the TOP, with me.

I view the political spectrum as a circle - a two-dimensional representation. At the top stands Total Liberty. At the bottom lies Complete Oppression. Down the right side are those we commonly label conservatives, and down the left are those we commonly label liberals.

The farther down either side you go, the more oppressed you become. The details are different - the Amendments which they torch are different, their ideas of "correctness" vary - but they both restrict my liberty. Every degree around the circle is another few percent of my freedom, until I arrive at the bottom completely without liberty or self-determination.

Once at the bottom, it hardly matters how one got there. Say I came around the right and you around the left; once we're in the Pit, does it really matter the Good Intentions with which our choice of road was paved?

This could be a sphere, of course. A three dimensional model, with the lines of longitude representing the various political parties or theories or groups. But they share something in common: Their endpoints. Follow along too far in the wrong direction, and they all take you to the same undesirable place.

This is not offered as a cocktail party quibble, Richard. I am neither "pro-abortion" nor "anti-abortion". I am strongly opposed to laws at any level either promoting or prohibiting abortions. That does not make me a centrist. If government suddenly began to require abortions of certain pregnancies for certain reasons, even on some level good reasons, then I would be suddenly perceived as intensely "anti-abortion" by those who see people as either pro-abortion or anti-abortion or at some reasonably well-defined point along that pro-to-anti scale from -10 (= pure pro) to +10 (= pure anti).

This situation exists in China, today. Compulsory abortions are a fact there. I use China as an example to help people understand that they often see only part of the political spectrum. Ask most people in America to name the two extremes on the abortion issue, and they'll reply "pro-life and pro-choice". They're wrong. "Pro-choice" is the MIDDLE of the spectrum. China is the other, forgotten end. When they realize that, they're on the way to understanding what Liberty really means.

Another way to view it: It is the imposition of someone's standards on someone else which is at the heart of all that is wrong with politics. You would doubtless not want MY standards imposed upon you, and I'm certain I don't want YOUR standards imposed upon me. Just because one of us can win an election, and thus trick a majority of the voting public into believing us, does not mean that the winner's standards should be imposed on everyone. My standards and choices are not up for a public vote; there's only one vote that counts there, and I cast it myself, thank you.

Which leads directly to my statement of the proper role of government: "The proper role of government is to preserve the ability of each individual to choose for themselves." That means "pro-choice" is actually the CENTER of the spectrum. So is tolerance of homosexuality. So is tolerance of firearm ownership. So is tolerance of another's religion.

Individuals are of course free to personally oppose these things, and seek to "educate" others to share their views. But no one, including the government, may compel your behavior in anything unless