Gathering Place Richard O. Rowland

---

Political arithmetic:
Can they add, or
only subtract?

---

As a longtime observer of politics -- including the unintended, often awful consequences of public policy actions and the posturing that accompanies the largely hopeless search for someone or something genuinely accountable for the ensuing mischief -- I have grown bored with the meaningless labels "left" and "right." The same goes for "conservative" or "liberal." Prior to 1900, "liberal" was the term used to describe what are now called libertarians." So I say off with all that language. Instead, why not concentrate on the end result whether intended or not?

It seems to me that every public policy advocated has as its probable bottom line (intended or not) either more individual autonomy, responsibility and accountability, or less. If it falls on the "more" side it should be a move in the direction the nation's founders envisioned. Thus, I would assign it a "plus" as something moving us in a moral direction. On the contrary, an action or policy that denigrates personal choice and accountability, giving additional power to a central authority at the direct expense or decrease of personal accountability, would be a "minus."

Today, a "right-winger" wants to dictate from on high what substance an individual might decide to ingest. On the other hand, the "left-winger" demands price controls from above for gasoline and other commodities. In general terms, the "rights" want less personal freedom in social areas, while the "lefts" are obsessed with putting government power to work controlling individuals in their economic endeavors. Both are industrious in calling for creating more laws, most of which produce more crime. They are, in essence, "crime creators."

Quite frankly, I am sick of both sides, in particular their holier-than-thou posturing as they claim to be promoting morality by limiting human options instead of expanding them. Here are several critical questions:

>> Is personal choice an essential element in defining morality?
>> Is it moral to do or not do something solely because someone puts a gun to your head and says that is your only choice?
>> Is all law moral?
>> If you decide to do or not do something because you perceive it the proper way, fully prepared to handle the consequences, are you acting morally?

But there exists a significant problem in this plus-and-minus formulation. Humans, most notably political ones, are great at rationalizing. Since it is conventional to be "for" human freedom and "against" tyranny, most of them cloak their remarks in language designed to make negatives appear positive. It is as the columnist Lou Boyd once observed: "Some say 'down escalator' is an oxymoron, some don't." Those who are focused on destroying liberty want to ignore the potential oxymoron. When they direct you and me to the escalator, and it goes down instead of up, any complaints are handled accordingly -- "it is an escalator, isn't it?" And, as in George Orwell's "Animal Farm," some pigs are more equal than others. Or, per his "1984," "War is Peace" and "Peace is War." So, to these people, plus is minus, and minus is plus. That's the way they talk. Thus our mental scorecards are a mess, causing confusion to reign supreme when we consider "political" things.

Here at Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, we are considering labeling each piece of proposed legislation with a plus- or minus-sign according to our opinion of the probable real world long-term results if the legislation became law. Please advise us of your opinion. Call 591-9193, e-mail grassroot@hawaii.rr.com or visit www.grassrootinstitute.org

---

Richard O. Rowland is president of Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.