libs and thumpers

I believe I told you that I learned about Czech frugality straight from Mama, and of course, from the time I was able to toddle I was off to Talmans to put my nickels into the bank and watch the clerk carefully write the new balance into the book, and every three months I think, there was interest! Interest, free money, I learned that early on, you can get money just from having money. And there was the dark side, if for some reason you had to borrow money from somebody you would have to PAY interest. You could have money taken out of your pocket just for owing money.

Not that any Czech would find himself in that position. I learned early on that Bohemians do not pay interest, they collect interest. I don’t know if it was that way in the old country, probably not. My readings in Czech history reveals that the kings kept inviting in the Jews and the Germans into the country because they knew they would work hard and make money and could be taxed, while their native countrymen, not so much.

But there is something in the Czech psyche, something flinty, something skeptical, maybe from being under those Hapsburg fops for so long, where if there is some guy, who is maybe a little too dressed up, talking, maybe a bit too fast, to a Czech about some kind of deal, which doesn’t quite make sense, it’s not too long before the Czech’s eyes go to slits and his hand goes to his wallet, and the too-well-dressed, too-fast-talking guy is looking at a slammed door.

I imagine we brought that attitude with us on the boat, and it was in this country, where we learned about interest, that we attained that reputation. I remember once showing a free-spending non-Czech friend a big fat tax return I had just gotten and he was all like, “Oh, what are you going to buy?” And I was all like “Ed, I am a Bohemian, this money is going straight into the bank.” Sometimes, I’ll observe to a friend that I have noticed that they are cheap, and they will be a little offended, and I will have to explain that I meant that as a compliment.

When I say libertarian, who I am referring to depends on the context. On the one hand I suppose there are the card-carrying libertarians, like members of the libertarian party. I am almost never referring to these, as I consider them irrelevant for all practical purposes. I guess I mean the people who claim to have libertarian principles, and they may know about the philosophy of libertarianism, or maybe just don’t like to pay taxes, but think libertarian sounds better than cheap or selfish, and more specifically I mean people in some kind of political office.

Technically libertarianism has goodies for both the right (limited government) and the left (legal dope, fewer wars), and this gives the pure libertarian those airs about how he is a man of principle, and above all those dirty partisan political parties. But the libertarian who wants to get into politics, who wants to actually make a difference, soon jettisons that left wing stuff about dope and war and clings to the lower taxes thing, and has no other home than the Republican party, although he still puts on airs, like he is better than all the other reps.

I think one of the ways he thinks he is better than the reps is that he hates the dems even more than they do. And on the theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, finds an unlikely ally in the bible thumpers who really hate the dems too. I say unlikely ally in that Christianity, with its emphasis on altruism and love would seem the antithesis of the libertarian, but the republican Christian doesn’t go in for that stuff much, is mostly interested in punishing people who they consider sinners, which generally means curbing individual liberty, something the libertarian is also against, but it’s mostly the individual liberty of disreputable people so the libertarian is not so upset with that.

So the two groups get along just fine, and I believe they each make up roughly half the tea party. I suppose you are right that they have more in common because of their hate for the dems because the dems are the other party, but ideologically I think they are both closer to the dems than to each other.

Nevertheless in my plan for marching together to a brighter destiny, I am throwing the bible thumpers under the bus. They are men of faith and there is no reasoning with them. The libertarians are ostensibly men of reason, so they can be reasoned with, and since the dems have logic on their side there is a chance they could win them over.

Here is something interesting. I am reading a couple books on the history of the English revolution where they beheaded the king. I think you might be interested in this because I believe it was the hey day of Locke, maybe Paine, but what interests me is the difference in the way they looked at the poor. Before the revolution, in the time of Catholicism the poor were considered vaguely saintly and you could build up your holiness by giving to them. But in the time of that early harsh Protestantism, it was believed that it was the role of society to move up everyone’s holiness together, and since the poor were not doing anything it was best not to give them any alms. Well something like that. I could explain it better but the morning is growing late already.