George W. Bush's Information Ethics

Abstract

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways harm our country and our people, and neither do we.-http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040805-4.htmlA Conservative Libertarian's Lament: History Is Repeating ItselfThere used be a time, long ago, when liberalism meant liberalism and, not so long ago, meant conservatism, and in the unique American context, experience, and sense, the two were almost always closely aligned. By a was meant a man who wanted morality flow from the responsible exercise of discretion, in both the personal and the economic spheres, rather than from rigid rules imposed by the state. To the liberal, in its original sense, a properly structured market would produce and inculcate such Franklinesque values as thrift, prudence, and integrity based on reputation. In the personal sphere, the liberal has always understood that that which is imposed by the state can at best be amoral, with the imposition itself being immoral.In the aftermath of the panic surrounding the great crash of 1929 and the subsequent terrifying depression, FDR-perhaps permanently-reshaped the American compact most profoundly. He changed hearts and minds with his fireside chats, but his most dangerous gift-and the one that inflicted the most damage-was his ability change the meaning of words. He changed the meaning of liberal its precise opposite-social democrat-the type who looks the state for economic provision, planning, and wisdom, as well as moral guidance. Not only did he change the meaning of its precise opposite, he partially succeeded in changing the meaning of its antithesis: Rights non-interference by the state rights specific claims backed up by the taxing power of the state. Because we think in terms of language, this kind of damage is more subtle, more powerful, and more permanent than changes in policies alone can ever be.In the uniquely American context, conservatism meant to conserve, if not the Republic of the Founders, then the mature Republic the Founders might have been proud see destined well out from their Nobel Laureate Friedrich A. Hayek's magnum opus, The Constitution of Liberty, contains a famous postscript on why this pre-eminent libertarian thinker eschewed the label conservative. But he referred a different sense of the word, an older and European sense: stasis, when in a time of rampant statism and social democracy, Hayek, of course, advocated radical change. Hayek's own teaching on how tradition should be respected, if not necessarily followed, simply because it arises spontaneously as the result of human action but without human design, shows that his disclaimer notwithstanding, he has definite tendencies. What he is teaching is that that which arises spontaneously likely contains a degree of wisdom within it beyond anything attainable by the direct design of human beings, although he would be the first admit that he is talking of wisdom, but not-at all-of the intelligence or skill evinced in some of humanity's proudest designed accomplishments.Our country is in grave danger once again, and we are now at a crossroads. Once again we are in the aftermath of a terrifying panic, and once again, we have an extremely effective leader who is, like FDR before him, gifted with the ability simply change the meaning of words, and therefore the very way we think and talk. Mr. Bush has stripped conservative of its uniquely American sense and it no longer means what it once meant or even anything distinctive at all. What happened the original meaning of liberalism, is happening- or perhaps has happened-to conservatism. No one can credibly claim that what we have now is a Republic that the Founders would have been proud see destined well out from their noble experiment. On the contrary, they would have been both horrified and terrified, as well as utterly confused as how it could have happened. …