Another insult hurled in the direction of liberals these days is “statist.” It is of a piece with the “liberal fascist” thesis that has electrified the imagination of many Reeps. In the threads, I am sometimes addressed as “statist,” as though barking at a communist or some other lowlife.

In the first place, it is useful to distinguish between government and state. In most countries, those functions are divided. The head of government is accountable for results and the head of state is accountable for character. Both results and character are aspects of leadership. The one is managed. The other is modeled.

In America, we hold to a Hollywood fantasy that character and results blend into one happy ending. Elsewhere, there is less naiveté. The leadership qualities needed to generate good results is not always conducive to good character. The reverse is also true. And so they diverge into an age-old “altar and throne” split. In the disparaging words of Ayn Rand, the Witch Doctor sanctions Attila and Attila provides protection for the Witch Doctor. In point of fact, though, state and government, monarch and prime minister, character and results, are two different things, and although these two aspects are often contradictory, human beings need BOTH from leadership.

In that light, to be called a “statist” is not a terrible thing. In fact, since morality is derived from civics, then “the state” has an indispensable role to play in creating public order. While it does not bash heads, like the government, it IS the repository of our cultural and moral heritage. In a real enough sense, to be stateless is to be soulless.

The assertion that we liberals are “statists,” even “fascists,” come from a perspective on GOVERNMENT—not the state. The recurring theme in these parts is that government is evil, and that the difference between the left and right in America is the difference between big government and small government. Let’s ignore the history of this argument—the fact that there is little in contemporary experience that should lead us to believe that the Republicans are the party of “small government.” It is clear that Reeps only begin to worry about governmental “intrusiveness” when they themselves are out of power. Natural enough, but hardly a principled theme (there are some rare exceptions on this—Ron Paul, for instance).

Rather, unless one is an anarchist, one must concede that government is at LEAST a necessary evil. Further, if government governs with the consent of the governed—if it has institutionalized a process by which the governed have the ultimate say-so on the direction of government—and if it is able to govern in a manner that is constitutional, i.e. with neutral and objective institutions—then the EVIL of government is largely mitigated. Even if it does not clear this minimum threshold—a threshold that distinguishes civilized nations from barbaric ones—one must still acknowledge that government remains a NECESSARY evil.

There is no doubt that the Founders saw King George’s government as tyrannical. And in those revolutionary days, there was an equation where the larger the governmental power, the smaller the individual liberty. But that was power that taxed without permitting representation. Once “republican” government was instituted, the fact that it was derived from legitimate democratic representation put an end to that inversion between power and liberty. Liberty, after all, is not entirely the right to do what one will. Human animals are not angels. Liberty is also, and even primarily, the right to have a say in that which tells you what you cannot do. In this country, we have achieved that. We have free speech, free worship, and regular elections. You want a government that taxes less and spends less? Speak out and win an election. And when you win an election, tax less and spend less. But you are out of bounds—way out of bounds—when you argue that those of us who want to tax more and spend more are “fascists.”

For here is the clinching argument. One can argue that government is inefficient. One can criticize government for being random and capricious. One can accuse bureaucrats of abusing their power. All these things are true, but they do not bleed into an issue of small government vs. large government. Big versus small government is a different question. Because what is not true is that “small government” is more efficient and less abusive. The inherent clunkiness in government is ALWAYS there. The power imbalances are still there. The 65 cents of value for every dollar spent is still there. The process-orientation rather than the result-orientation is still there. It is just smaller. And the ungoverned part of society is larger--still savage, still nasty, still operating by fraud and by force, still doing the things that make government necessary in the first place.

So shut up with your “statist” nonsense. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Baseball is compelling on a bunch of different levels.  For me, the most compelling aspect is that it makes history come alive.  Through the decades, thousands of young men have passed through the big leagues.  They were men like you and me, except they played baseball really well.  Some had sterling character.  Some were lowlifes.  Most were somewhere in-between.  Some became even greater after their stint in the majors.  Others descended into squalor.  Most just muddled along, as we all do. 

But once in awhile, a young man with a world of promise is killed.  And when that happens, we can only shake our heads at world where children die and fools live on. 

Apparently, this lanky young right-hander had broken through.   Nick Adenhart had a sensational spring and had fought his way into the starting rotation of one of baseball's finest teams.  Last year, in four appearances, he allowed as many runs as innings pitched.  He walked a lot of guys.  But over the winter, apparently, something within him re-configured.  He began to think like a big league pitcher--to throw with confidence when he was behind on the count, or to realize that he--and not the batter--controlled the tempo.  With a blazing fastball and a nifty offspeed pitch, the young man was going to be good.   Maybe very good.  Maybe great.  He was only 22.

Whenever a young man achieves this level of competitive excellence, there is always a dad behind him.  And of course, always, in the souls of men, there is a mom.  It breaks one's heart to think of his parents and their broken hearts. 

Nick Adenhart now belongs to baseball lore.  I call it the Nathan Hale category--what is lost when a promising young man dies too early.  Baseball has a Nathan Hale category as well.  And that is now where Nick Adenhart lives.  We will heave big sad sighs over what might have been.  We will remember his earnest demeanor, his loose frame, his level of achievement.  We will listen to the stories about him, from his family, his friends, his teammates.  And we will reflect upon life, with its wicked curveballs and its high hard ones.  We will reflect upon life and how life without Nick Adenhart is a little more joyless. 

One insult I hear all the time at this site is that “Patriotic Liberal” is an oxymoron. In truth, it is difficult to be a patriot in America without being liberal.

To begin with, there is a distinction between “patriotism” and “nationalism.” Nationalism is kind of civic egoism, two-bit emotions found in any old country, however barbaric . Patriotism, in contrast, is a virtue. And as a virtue, it is its own reason. We do X or we believe Y because we love our country. We do not love our country because of X or because of Y.

But what kind of love is patriotism? How is this love a virtue?  I would compare patriotism to the love of a long marriage. One knows his wife. One is aware of her shortcomings and her flaws. But one chooses to love her anyhow. One chooses to love her because there is deep truth in abiding love, a truth that is more powerful than passion or emotion or whatever else may flare up in the neurology of men. The love that sustains a long marriage is a practice and a discipline.  It is a virtue.

So, too, with patriotism. America is honorable for the better part of her moral and civic heritage. This moral and civic heritage is our virtue.  It is sacred and profound, and rooted in our nation itself. We were Christian colonies, but it took the Enlightenment to make us a Republic. We are the first country—the only country—that was founded, not in race nor religion nor language, but upon a set of precepts.

What were those ideals?  The natural rights of men. It was an idea that self-governing men can manage their own affairs and choose their own leadership. It was an idea that government comes from the people, not from the divine right of the guys already in power.

But that is not all. In addition to government with the consent of the governed (which is why we have elections, by the way, and why it is vitally important that elections are fair and true), the founders put forward the notion that there is an objective moral universe, that this  moral universe can be rationally understood, and that humanity is at the center of it. And while the civic rituals of religion may buttress the public order—which is a good thing—the fundamental truth of our country is a kind of liberality that confers dignity to men while imparting an abundance of benefits.

From that time to ours, we have been the world’s stewards of the liberal way. And it is a way that has yielded value to us, economically and in terms of moral authority. In the end, our capacity to lead is derived from our ability to draw from “the better angels of our nature.” And not surprisingly, American history is very much the tension between the idealism that gave rise to our Republic in the first place and the willingness of leaders to pander to the baser instincts of the broad population. Patriotism is on the side of the former; nationalism is merely the latter.

And that is why it is virtually impossible to be a true patriot in America without being liberal.  And it is why illiberal souls, barbaric and flat, may strut around, parading and blatting their "patriotism," but in the end, they are indistinguishable from grubby people across the face of the earth.  In the end, the sweet sentiment that is patriotic feeling belongs to those men who are faithful in upholding and improving the moral character of their nation.