There's No Such Thing as a Right-Wing Extremist

There’s no such thing as a right-wing extremist. There’s no such thing as a left-wing extremist either. Because the whole right-left model doesn’t work.

Yes, there are extremists. But communism (what we’ve been calling extreme left) isn’t the polar opposite of fascism (what we’ve been calling extreme right); they are almost the same. Both are nasty, misery-filled tyrannies. Trying to find some balance between two really awful things only gives us a really awful compromise.

I propose that we look at the actual polar opposites, and the world of positions between them, in hopes that we can make some better choices.

We want freedom, prosperity, and civilization. That’s our goal. We can judge an ideology or government form by how far it diverges from those political, economic, and social goal zones: near, far, or extremely far.

In the Spherical Model, the political sphere has freedom as the north pole; the south pole is tyranny. Overlaying that is the Economic Sphere, with prosperity north and poverty south. And overlaying the other layers is the Social Sphere, with civilization north and savagery south.

Lateral location on the sphere is neutral; it depends on whether the issue being looked at is relevant to local, regional, national, or larger interests, on a spectrum ranging from the individual and family all the way up to global. Lateral posistion only relates to tyranny if a higher level than necessary tries to take control.

When we look at the extremes of communism and fascism, they’re pretty close to one another. They may even overlap: the communist Soviet Union was called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic. Nazi Germany was the National Socialist Party.

In this example Communism is blue, Socialism is red, Fascism is green

If we draw them on our Political Sphere, communism and fascism are both in the lower left quadrant, where you find statist tyranny, or totalitarianism. Socialism might overlap them completely. Or, as it is in some countries, there could be only partial socialism, so those versions might be less far south into tyranny. And there could be versions that are globalist, or only national or even more local. For example, Berkeley, California, has had a communist mayor and some citywide communist policies. And California is clearly more socialist than Utah or Texas. The latter two are much closer to Constitutional freedom than the current US as a whole.

From the perspective of the global interest extreme,
moving away from global interest either left or right

Communism and fascism can be different ideologies and still be right next to one another on the sphere. If we spin the globe a bit, so we’re directly facing the far eastern global line, we can place communism all the way south and next to global interests, and fascism can also be all the way south and next to global interests. It’s like being on either side of the international dateline. You might have come at the dateline from one direction, and your friend might have gotten there from the other direction, but you’re both within a couple of blocks from each other with an imaginary line between you.

Why does all this matter? Because ideas matter. Philosophies matter. That’s what determines what our governments are like.

And what our governments are like determines what our lives are like. How free we are to pursue our dreams, live our lives, enjoy the fruits of our labors and our property. Governments can either protect our life, liberty, and property, or they can limit our choices and prevent us from thriving.

And even if we, ourselves, figure out how to get to freedom, prosperity, and civilization, the government we live under is in part determined by the rest of society. So we need others to learn how to get there too.

Here’s the secret we keep trying to yell from the rooftops: Government needs to be limited to its proper role, the way it’s spelled out in the Preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

For prosperity, government gets out of the way of a free market and merely protects our lives and property. And for civilization, government that gets out of our way while encouraging good citizens to honor God, family, life, property, and truth.

Spherical Model Quotes

The Political Sphere
of The Spherical Model

I’ve done posts in the past of quotes from various people that relate to the Spherical Model (for example, here, here, and here). And I’ve done posts collecting links to some of the “best of” the Spherical Model blog posts. But I haven’t done a post quoting from the Spherical Model website and blog. That’s what we’re doing today—quoting myself. I’m hoping this will encourage you to read more about the Spherical Model, an alternative to right and left in describing interrelating ideas from the political, economic, and social spheres.

From “Fact or Opinion,” March 12, 2015. The piece was about the distortion of the definitions of fact and opinion in a way that removes morality and makes truth harder to ascertain. This is the final summary:

Truth exists separate from us. Seeking truth is a work for a lifetime. It takes a good mind, and a good heart, and spiritual strength to know truth. Seeking God is more likely to lead to truth than leaving out the Omniscient One and going at it on our own.

From “Wealth, Poverty, and Politics,” December, December 10, 2015. This piece reviewed an interview with Thomas Sowell on Uncommon Knowledge, following Sowell’s book by the same title. I noticed connections with the Spherical Model idea of interrelationships of political freedom, economic prosperity, and civilization. This is one of the basic axioms of the Spherical Model and the role of government:

Whenever government attempts something beyond the proper role of government (protection of life, liberty, and property), it causes unintended consequences—usually exactly opposite to the stated goals of the interference.

From “Commerce and Philanthropy—Two Sides of the Same Coin,” November 9, 2015. The piece covered a Q&A with Steve Forbes at a Hillsdale College economic symposium. Forbes mentioned the importance, morally, of turning to the Constitution for economic thriving, which sounds like the Spherical Model, with the interrelating spheres. I followed with this:

The goals are freedom, which we get from abiding by the US Constitution; prosperity, which we get from free markets (not to be confused with crony capitalism); and civilization, which we get from a moral people living moral lives, which includes strong families to pass along the way to civilization.

From “What We Conserve,” October 1, 2015. In this piece, we go over the enumerated powers of the Constitution, based on God-given rights. Because this is the Spherical Model, we cover what we conserve in each of the spheres: political, economic, and social. So we’ll have a quote or two from each of those:

Political Sphere:

If we’re going to conserve our liberties, that means government does nothing to infringe on our God-given rights. So government has no business involving itself in what we believe or what we say, with the specific exceptions of when something we do infringes on the God-given rights of others. What we need is to conserve our Constitution, in its real form, not some penumbras invented by unelected judges.

Economic Sphere:

Every dollar government spends is a societal expense. Government can’t spend more money to help the economy. When we have downturns in the economy, and everyone says government has to do something—that something should be to get out of the way and let the recovery happen.

Charity isn’t a duty of government; charity isn’t even possible by government. Government charity is better labeled coercive taking of income from some to give to others—or theft. Charity includes various helps for the poor: welfare food and housing, health care, student grants, social security, and more.

Conservatives don’t mean for these helps to be eliminated. But in a civilized society, those in need receive help mainly locally, by those in contact with them, such as churches and local nonprofits, from those who freely give. Charity means love; it is entirely unrelated to forced income redistribution. If there is one thing conservatives need to speak more clearly on, it is this better way to help those in need. Our way is better for giver and receiver, and leads to greater prosperity, rather than more poverty at the cost of lost freedom.

Social Sphere:

Civilization requires a people accountable to God. Such people value family, innocent human life, property rights, and truth. Such people respect one another and generally live together in peace despite differences in belief and culture.

A conservative leader recognizes that religion is not just a tolerated quirk of some minority of the population; religion is an essential institution helping us understand what our rights are, and what our obligations to one another are. The question about forcing Little Sisters of the Poor, or Hobby Lobby, or bakers, florists, and photographers to act against their conscience would disappear, if our leaders appreciated the religious view of family, life, property, and truth.

From “The Political World Is Round,” on The Spherical Model website, in the section “US Parties in Relation to Freedom Zone.” This was written, in its current form, in 2010. It’s probably more positive than the party is today:

The Democrats are a symbiotic mix of people demanding that government provide for their needs—health care, education, housing, redistribution of wealth, regulating use of resources, even making jobs: the demanding needy, we could call them—along with the elites who are willing to pander to the demanding needy in order to increase their personal power: the would-be dictators. When Republicans engage in the debate, they often try to deal with the demanding needy by saying, “We’ll give you those things too, but we’ll be more responsible about it and cost you less in taxes,” to which the reply is, “You hate children and old people; you’re trying to kill them!” and other absurdities. It’s not a reasonable debate approaching even the lowest borders of the freedom zone.

I don’t mean to imply that everyone in the Democratic Party is consciously socialist. Many simply focus on needs and wants as problems, with government as the only logical problem solver. Many on the would-be dictators’ side of the party, those in academia, media, entertainment, and other areas controlling wealth, are well-intentioned. They think of themselves as the fortunate (and often therefore guilty) elite who believe it’s their moral obligation to force society to provide for the needy—unwilling or unable to see the immorality in taking substance from one person for their own purposes—what we call theft when anybody but the government does it. One troubling thing about elites who seek power is that, when the people don’t elect them, they see that as just more evidence that the people aren’t capable of choosing what’s good for them, and so they see their power seeking as even more justified.

From “Free Enterprise vs. Controlled Economy,” on The Spherical Model website, in the section on “Capitalism.”

Capital in and of itself is simply never evil. Capital might be considered always good. It represents work above and beyond what is essential followed by careful use of it toward a good idea, resulting in even more surplus. Those who hate capitalism are those who don’t produce it. They don’t have either the discipline or the drive to produce more than is necessary, and then to find ways to have that wealth work for them. They are jealous of those who have produced capital and use it. They insist it’s unfair that some have advantages that they don’t.

If you’re interested in more collected words from The Spherical Model, try the links found in “Spherical Model Review,” December 31, 2015. 

Rebuilding the Shining City on a Hill

A group of women from church have been getting together this year on our own version of The Happiness Project, working on personal ways to find more joy in life.  I read the book some years ago and didn't find it life changing, but working together on our own I have found valuable. Our journey has included exercises in being more mindful, and more grateful. As part of my exercises, I’ve included various affirmations, to get my mind more focused on the positive.

Lately I’ve been doing an exercise in which I look at what things look like when some aspect of my life is the way I want it: “When I have _____ the way I want, my life includes _____ and _____.” It puts my mind to work thinking about the positive, creating what I want, rather than cataloging the things that might prove I don’t have it.

So I thought I’d look at that on a broader scale, way beyond just me, to maybe a national level. Maybe beyond that. But what would happen if a large number of us started mentally creating the freedom, prosperity, and civilization we want? Feel free to join me:

Freedom—The Political Sphere

When our country is free, we have

·         Laws that limit government to its proper role of protecting our lives, liberty, and property.

·         Laws that come from the most local level possible for the particular concern.

·         Laws that guarantee our God-given natural rights.

·         Laws that are written, known, and understood by the general population.

·         Leaders committed to the limited government laws we have written.

·         Leaders who are committed to serving people, rather than maintaining personal power.

·         Leaders who live exemplary private lives, in addition to their exemplary public lives, leading the population to emulate their example.

·         Equality before the law, with no favoritism for certain tribes: ethnicities, genders, factions.

·         Free and fair elections.

·         Justice that applies the laws as written and intended, with punishments intended to prevent that perpetrator from repeating (could include rehabilitation), and discouraging any other perpetrators from committing the same crime.

Prosperity—The Economic Sphere

When our country is prosperous, we have

·         Free enterprise, with its entrepreneurship and invention.

·         Self-regulating industries, working always for better products, made in better ways, and becoming better stewards of resources.

·         Honor to the successful, and encouragement and opportunity for those not yet successful.

·         Safety in the money supply, which exactly accounts for the accumulated wealth created by the people.

·         Those who create their wealth in charge of how they spend their wealth.

·         Private resources to fund things that are important to us: education, medical care, scientific research, arts, recreation, etc.

·         Private resources to care for the poor who are unable, either temporarily or permanently, of caring for themselves, so that even the most needy have basic food and shelter needs met.

·         Freedom from government interference beyond protecting our lives, freedom, and property.

·         Taxes limited to providing only for the basic role of government, done in the most effective manner.

Civilization—The Social Sphere

When our country is civilized, we have

·         A religious people, with freedom to worship as one sees fit combined with encouragement of basic religious ethics: valuing innocent human life, valuing truth, valuing property rights, and valuing family and marriage.

·         Freedom from religious persecution.

·         Freedom to live our religions in our daily lives, including in our businesses.

·         Self-governing people.

·         Educated and wise people, who seek truth, justice, and mercy, and strong ties to the history that led to our thriving civilization.

·         Strong families, with a critical mass of married mother and father raising their own children, with encouragement and support from extended family and society.

·         Wholesome entertainment and recreation, free from bombardment of sex, violence, or general ugliness and uncivilized behavior.

·         Flourishing art, music, literature, and architecture that uplifts and inspires.

·         Sense of safety and security in our persons and property.

·         Respect for law and authority, while feeling safe voicing our concerns and beliefs to move for needed change.

·         Peace and harmony among our civilized neighbors locally and internationally.

This list does not include things like instituting a minimum wage, or a maximum wage, or any concern about income inequality, because those things are taken care of in a free market among civilized people, who do business fairly and compassionately care for the less fortunate. Government interference always causes unintended consequences, usually which are the exact opposite of the stated concern.

This list does not include any quotas in hiring based on sex or ethnicity; those things are taken care of by civilized people who see each other as individuals rather than members of various tribes.

This list does not include any concerns about the impact of people on the environment; civilized people care for the world they live in, and free and prosperous people are the innovators who invent better, cleaner, safer products. We don't get there by alarmist regulations that prevent innovation and instill guilt simply for living on the earth--which was created by God as our home.

Image by Hawk862, found here

What I’m envisioning might seem too good to be true. But it is the vision our founding fathers had when they wrote our Constitution and embarked on the experiment of the United States of America. Were there still problems? Yes. They were unable to end slavery, even within the twenty-year time frame they proposed. But the Civil War, the bloodiest and greatest disruption to civilization, was probably a just punishment. And it’s long over. And it took a while to get out of debt from getting things underway (Revolutionary War, War of 1812, etc.)

But the first fifty years of this nation may be one of the most significant examples of growth prosperity seen in world history. That's what Alexis de Toqueville found when he wrote Democracy in America.

It was only failure to adhere to the Constitution, eroding little by little—and sometimes big by big—the laws and expectations and civility, that has led to our debt, our restricted freedoms, our economic malaise, and the calamitous state of family, with a majority of children raised without both parents, practically guaranteeing their lifelong poverty and the decay of civilization.

Many of our recent leaders have consistently failed to lead decent lives of service and example, and have sought oppressive power, calling good evil and evil good. Or have failed to stand up for right against those who have sought the failure of the American experiment.

It is said you get what you deserve. But that sounds hopeless, since I cannot control, or barely influence, the masses who fail to think and act wisely.

I want hope. I love my country, and I want it back. So this country—the shining city on a hill, as President Reagan[i] described it—is what I am envisioning. Maybe my thinking of it, creating it spiritually, you could say—even praying for it—along with any of you who also long for freedom, prosperity, and civilization will set the energy in motion to restore what our Constitution was rightly designed to provide.

---

[i] In his farewell address, January 1989, Reagan said: “I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don’t know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace.”

Habits and Thoughts of Prosperity

There’s a formula for escaping poverty in America, and entering the middle class, which we’ve repeated here a number of times: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. 

•        Don’t have sex before age 20.
•        Don’t have sex until after marriage.
•        Stay married.
•        Obtain at least a high school diploma.

The economic problem is solved with social/civilization solutions.

A couple of contrasting articles came to my attention recently. The first, “Telling Poor, Smart Kids That All It Takes Is Hard Work to Be as Successful as Their Wealthy Peers Is a Blatant Lie,” explains why the poor are so disadvantaged that no amount of hard work can overcome their disadvantage. The other, “Will Your Child be Rich or Poor? 15 Poverty Habits Parents Teach Their Children,”  explains the difference in ways of thinking between the poor and the wealthy.

The formula above is pretty minimal. Out of poverty means you’ve got housing, clothing, and food handled. But it might require a lot of hard work, lifelong struggle, and lack of the perks of wealth: travel; additional education; art and music for pleasure; luxuries and comforts; enjoying better foods, clothing, and housing.

Is that fair? People who think it is wrong for some people to enjoy things that all can’t enjoy are different from people who enjoy those things without guilt. And our beliefs determine a lot about our lives. So maybe those thoughts are worth looking at.

The you-can’t-get-out-of-poverty beliefs revealed in the first article are something like, “No one gets wealth just from hard work, good ideas, and social connections; they get that on the backs of the disadvantaged,” and “The deck is stacked against the poor, so no matter how hard they work, they’ll never get ahead.” The beliefs are self-fulfilling.

Changing thoughts can change the outcome.

There’s something to be said for social capital; it can make up for lack in a limited number of households. But if the larger community doesn’t have enough social capital, the disadvantages of social-capital-lacking families can be devastating.

The disadvantages can’t be overcome with money. Certainly they can’t be wiped out by taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the disadvantaged. Money is useful as economic capital, but it isn’t moral—it’s neutral.

The second article shows there's a difference in habits and ways of thinking that overcome the disadvantages, using a couple of lists. The first list contrasts habits of the wealthy and the poor. And the second describes what parents can do to teach the right ways of thinking that allow for wealth.

Here are a few of the contrasts (some of these I’ve paraphrased):

•         80% of the wealthy are focused on at least one goal vs. 12% of the poor.
•          83% of the wealthy attend/attended back-to-school night for their kids vs. 13% of the poor.
•          67% of the wealthy watch 1 hour or less of T.V. per day vs 23% of the poor.
•          9% of the wealthy watch reality T.V. shows vs. 78% of the poor.
•          73% of the wealthy were taught the 80/20 rule vs. 5% of the poor (live off 80% save 20%).
•          8% of the wealthy believe wealth comes from random good luck vs. 79% of the poor.
•          79% of the wealthy believe they are responsible for their financial condition vs. 18% of the poor.

The wealthy have different habits, and think different thoughts. They live their lives differently.

So what is on the list of what to teach? All of it assumes teaching them the minimal formula of escaping poverty, listed above; that goes without saying. Then, some of it is clearly economic, but much of it is social (again, somewhat paraphrased).

•          Limit TV, social media, and cell phone.
•          Require educational reading, in addition to recreational reading.
•          Get kids to physically exercise every day.
•          Limit junk food.
•          Teach goal setting—short-term and long-term.
•          Expect children to work to earn money, and to volunteer.
•          Teach children to save a large portion of their earnings and gifts of money.
•          Teach manners, and gratitude.
•          Encourage children to risk making mistakes, which can be used for learning.
•          Teach children to manage their anger and negative emotions appropriately.
•          Encourage sports and additional extracurricular interests.
•          Spend time talking together as a family every day.
•          Teach principles of good time management.

The poor need to learn that poverty can be a temporary place, and that within themselves lie great possibilities. Nothing keeps them in poverty more than thinking they’re stuck there, and then making decisions as though nothing they do matters.

Changing thinking would work better than taking all the money from all the top 1% of earners, and redistributing it to the poor. Those wealthy who are newly made poor are likely to recover, probably within their own lifetime, and certainly within an additional generation. Those given sudden wealth would remain in poverty, or return to it within a generation.

Prosperity requires certain economic practices, but it also requires living the principles of civilization. We don’t need ways to take wealth from those who have made it; we need ways to teach those who don’t have it what it takes to earn it. Teach them the habits and beliefs of prosperity.

Conserving

Conserve: to keep from being damaged, lost, or wasted; save.[i]

Conservative is one of those words I use fairly frequently, even in reference to myself. I’m talking about conserving the Constitution and it’s principles of freedom. I’m talking about living the principles that build wealth and spread prosperity, rather than waste or profligacy that lead to poverty. I’m talking about the principles that lead to civilization, away from savagery.

But I’m finding it doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone.

I started thinking about this after I happened to hear a discussion on Glenn Beck radio last week. He and crew, Pat and Stu, were talking about the Republican candidates (including those not yet officially in the race) and what factions of the party those individuals could satisfy.

Beck is libertarian (which I am not quite), so I shouldn’t expect the same point of view I have, but we agree on so many things, I forget there are differences. But he described the “conservatives” in the party as something other than I would understand.

The discussion followed an interview with Gov. Rick Perry, prior to his announcing a campaign a week or so from now. It was in that interview that Perry recalled a meeting with the president in which he mentioned that National Guard being kept 50 miles from the border wasn’t close enough—and the president turned to Valarie Jarrett and asked if that was the case, because he didn’t know where he had stationed troops. Anyway, that was May 20^th, if you have the ability to go hear it.[ii]

After the interview, Glenn and team started discussing the various candidates, and how they attract the various segments of the Republican party. Glenn asserts that there are four boxes:

GB: So, what it is, in one box, you have to have the GOP. That is the one with the most number in it. Establishment. People who just pull the lever for the Republican, no matter who the Republican is. So there are four boxes: one is GOP; one is conservative; one is religious; one is Tea Party/libertarian.

And then Stu asks for a better definition, which gets to the part that I’ve been thinking about:

Stu: Can you explain the distinction, in this particular scenario, what conservative is? Would you say it’s more like a hawkish...?

GB: Fiscal conservative, yeah, hawk. You know, somebody who is…

Stu: What differentiates it from Tea Party?

GB: Um..

Stu: Hawkishness?

GB: No. I would say Tea Party is more small government.

At this point they have some discussion about Reagan, that he was conservative, but he wasn’t small government. I took issue with it. Their examples were the border—which was supposed to be the one-time amnesty combined with closing the border, so that the issue would be gone forever. But, since the border wasn’t closed, that amnesty was the example to prevent us from ever giving in again. A learning opportunity. Knowing what we know now, would Reagan today offer amnesty? I don’t think so.

And the other example was that Reagan didn’t get rid of the Department of Education, and the Tea Party/libertarians want to. But they forget—Reagan wanted to; he tried. But he was working with a Democrat Senate and House the whole time he was in office. The measure of whether he was conservative would be, did he do the most conservative things he could get done (like lower taxes, which boosted the economy big time)? And what would he have tried to do with a willing Congress?

And I don’t really relate to the term “hawkish.” Reagan was able to end the Cold War without conventional warfare—because he was willing to fight if needed, and he stood firm. What a concept!

In the end of their discussion of candidates, they decided that two candidates—who are leading in Glenn Beck’s monthly online poll (so, not scientific, but gives you a sense of what his listeners believe)—each fill three of the four boxes. Gov. Scott Walker has the GOP establishment box, the conservative box, and the Tea Party/libertarian box. And Ted Cruz has the conservative box, the religious box, and the Tea Party/libertarian box—but he’s missing the biggest box, the GOP establishment. Which, if you define the bigness of the GOP as “People who just pull the lever for the Republican, no matter who the Republican is,” is irrelevant, because whoever gets the nomination will get those people. What’s really at stake is the fundraising and support of establishment politicians and their supporters. By the way, here in Texas, the GOP loves Ted Cruz; he ran away with the straw poll at the state GOP convention last June.

I understand that it’s a game to measure candidates with these four boxes. But it’s imperfect. I’m a Republican precinct chair, as several members of our local Tea Party are, and I’ve tried to do my civic duty all along. Many Tea Partiers awoke in 2010, when Obamacare got pushed through. I was already awake. Tea Partiers at that point began educating themselves—with more training on the Constitution among regular non-student adults than I’ve ever seen. Maybe more than have studied it on their own since the founding. So Tea Partiers are for small government—because the Constitution is about limited government. So I’m a conservative, religious, Tea Party, GOP-er. Hmm. And I don't think I'm all that rare.

What is a conservative if not for small government, as enumerated in the Constitution? It’s hard for me to picture conservatism without all four boxes—with the possible exception of GOP establishment, although conservatives are totally willing to reform an imperfect party that at least has potential.

The Political Sphere
of the Spherical Model

This is where the Spherical Model helps. We don’t need to separate out into local or big government Republicans; the questions that get us to the freedom zone are about the proper role of government and about the proper level (lowest, most local level possible) for any particular issue.

And the economic question is not whether we are pro-business or not; you can’t be a fiscal conservative unless you’re in favor of freeing up the free market. That’s beats crony capitalism or centrally controlled socialist economies every time. A conservative conserves the principles of the free market—which might at times require radical change from the status quo of regulatory tyranny.

People who claim to be fiscally but not socially conservative are not deep thinkers; they cannot get prosperity without civilized people making it possible. Sure, we’ll welcome their vote, but they’re not the leaders toward the world we want.

So then, the social question is, simply: Do you favor civilization or savagery? We know what gets to civilization. A religious people are required, because no one else will self-rule. We self-rule because we live God’s laws, which are higher than our own personal, changeable sense of ethics. God grants us our rights, so without God, the tyrannical leaders grant or take away “rights” at their whim. And our laws reflect our own willingness to live the Ten Commandments: honor and protect family, respect private property, be honest, don’t murder. Without these basics, it really doesn’t matter what you think about race, gender, climate, or some other pet virtue.

You can’t know what good is, if you don’t know who God is; He defines good.

It would be nice to have a better word than “conservative.” I looked up synonyms in a thesaurus, and that was disheartening: cautious, conventional, die-hard, establishmentarian, guarded, hidebound, middle-of-the-road, moderate, quiet, reactionary, right-wing, sober, Tory, traditional, unexaggerated, unprogressive, verkrampte.

I did a Google Translate on that last one; it means cramped. I tried translating “conservative” into German, and it gave me a much kinder cognate: konsesrvativ. Plus some other adjectives that mean essentially, cautious, careful, wary, or prudent, which are at least better than cramped.

So, the thesaurus thinks conservative means something very uncool. I can live with uncool; I pretty much always have. But I don’t like inaccurate.

I could use the Spherical Model shorthand of north on the sphere—and I do. But until the world catches on to this new vocabulary, I will probably keep saying I’m a Constitutional, fiscal, and religious conservative.

I very much prefer the Webster’s definition for conserve, which I used at the top of this piece. I want to conserve our Constitution and the way of life it offers. I want to keep it from being damaged, lost, or wasted. I want to preserve—conserve—the highest freedom, prosperity, and civilization that we have obtained, or return to that pinnacle by repairing the decay we’ve experienced.

I don’t trust that a single elected official, even a president, can undo all the damage. But having someone who loves those things worth preserving is a start. And such a person could inspire many more to work on the challenging restoration. So I won’t be looking for a person who fits enough boxes to win an election; I’ll be looking for a person who understands what’s at stake and loves freedom, prosperity, and civilization as much as I do.

---

[i] Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition © 1982.

[ii] Glenn Beck Radio, May 20, 2015, from 1:44:30 to about 1:58:00, available by subscription.

More of the Best, Part III

Economic Sphere

Today is the actual anniversary of the first Spherical Model blog post. Hurray! And this is the third day in our 4^th anniversary and 600^th post celebration. The first time I did a “best of” collection, it was at 400 posts. So this new list adds to that list from the past couple hundred posts. The celebration started with the Spherical Model concept, and part II was on the Political Sphere. Come back tomorrow when we look at Civilization.

Today’s list is the Economic Sphere. To start your studies, you might want to read the Economic section of the Spherical Model website. And also take a look at the original “best of” list of Economic Sphere posts. The posts below are more recent. I see the list is long. That’s the problem with being my own editor. I wrote them with the hope they would be of value to readers. They still seem that way to me. So while this isn’t every economic post, it’s more than a top 10. You’re not required to read every post, but I think they could all be useful.

The Spherical Model—Best of: Volume II, Economic Sphere

·         Doing Business:  August 23, 2013 

·         Poverty of Nations Review:

o   Labor:  September2, 2013 

o   Prices:  September 4, 2013 

o   Greed vs. Self-Interest:  September 9, 2013 

·         Beanie Baby Economics:  October 28, 2013 

·         Redistribution:  October 30, 2013

·         Interference and Consequences: November 6, 2013 

·         The Rhetorical Question:  November 22, 2013

·         Economic Schools of Thought:  November 25, 2013 

·         The Fifty-Year War, Part I and Part II: January 13 and 16, 2014 

·         Flat Lining:  May 5, 2014 

·         Prosperity vs. Poverty:  July 21, 2014 

·         Giving until It Hurts:  November 6, 2014 

·         How Much Is 18 Trillion?:  December 9, 2014 

·         Laffer Curve Turns 40:  January 12, 2015 

More of the Best

illustration, not an actual photo of festivities here at The Spherical Model

It’s a celebration day here at Spherical Model. Today is the fourth anniversary of the first Spherical Model blog post (3-4-2011). And it coincides with the 600^th post. I didn’t brilliantly plan them to coincide, but that’s how it worked out. So, break out the balloons and confetti.

Two hundred posts ago I did a best-of collection, over three days. I’ve written a lot since then, so, in way of celebration, we’ll do a sort of Greatest Hits Volume II. This will be multiple posts, with lots of links. But if you’re just getting acquainted with the Spherical Model alternative to the left/right paradigm, this could be a good starting place.

The Spherical Model blog is about the interrelationships of the political, economic, and social spheres. So there are some posts that point out the interrelationships, and there are some that are more specifically about one of the three spheres. Our "best of" will have four sections: The Spherical Model, The Political Sphere, The Economic Sphere, and the Social Sphere (which I often refer to simply as Civilization, because civilization is what we’re going for, and sometimes “social” just isn’t descriptive enough).

After that, I reserve the right to update some collections, and maybe add another. There’s the Defense of Marriage Collection; as time passes, this gets closer ties to Religious Freedom and Watching the Courts, which I haven’t done as a collection, but maybe I should. And there continue to be additional Education posts. And I probably could include an entire list on Voter Integrity, but that might go along with responsible citizenship duties. So, I’m still thinking through how to offer the collections.

The past year or so I’ve been posting typically twice a week. But this week I’ll post daily to get in at least the four main sections.

The Spherical Model—Best Of: Volume II

The Spherical Model concept is my invention, so it’s not surprising if you’re unfamiliar. The website gives the full explanation, with articles totaling about 50 pages. The second place to catch up is the Best Of list from 2013. I offered a sort of beginner’s primer the last post of 2014, so that might be a good place to start. That and the rest of this list all follow the 2013 Best Of list.

·        The Political Sphere Is Round:  December 29, 2014

·        Knowedge, Power, Economy—and Civilization: December 19, 2013 

·        America—Worth Seeing, Worth Saving: July 14, 2014 

·        Climbing Back Up: July 31, 2014

·        North and South Comparison: August 4, 2014 

·        Character Trumps Tribe, Part I, Part II, Part III: October 23, 27, 30, 2014