The Bible says we earn our bread by the sweat of our brow. Today we operate on the assumption people have rights. Those who cannot afford bread have a right to expect others to give it to them.

David Brooks writes in the New York Times (The Age of Innocence) that democracies in Europe and America are in trouble because we no longer have an accurate view of human nature. We have forgotten that people are naturally selfish and need watching. Brooks quotes James Madison:

“As there is a degree of depravity in mankind, which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence.”

In other words, we are bad but not all bad.

Brooks writes that America’s founders opted to deal with our badness by decentralizing power. Europeans preferred centralized authority, but also rule by elites. (That may be why the editors at the Financial Times have so much trouble understanding the American system. It makes it too hard to get things done.)

Brooks writes that over the years we have gotten away from the idea that people are very bad and just a little bit good, and this means the popular will must be restrained. Today our politicians act like marketing executives. They fall over themselves trying to find out what people want so they can promise to give it to them. Brooks says:

“Having lost a sense of their own frailty, many voters have come to regard their desires as entitlements.”

The Obama administration’s “Julia” ad perfectly symbolizes this attitude. Throughout Julia’s life government acts as the Sugar Daddy, delivering “free money and goodies up and down the life cycle.”

In Europe, Brooks writes, workers want dynamic capitalism and great lifestyles without long work hours. European welfare states go broke trying to deliver the impossible.

In the US, Congress can pass laws that give people benefits, but gridlock results when self-restraint is attempted.

Brooks says the institutional structures built in Europe and America were overwhelmed when people lost a sense of their own weakness, and self-doubt went away. Brooks concludes:

“People used to believe that human depravity was self-evident and democratic self-government was fragile. Now they think depravity is nonexistent and they take self-government for granted.”

The old models will not work again until we acknowledge our weaknesses and learn to police our impulses, says Brooks.

WSJ says Obama is so eager to make the point that government spending (he calls it investment) is the key to economic progress he sometimes “wanders beyond his area of expertise.”

Obama may not know much about business because it is not his field (Jackie Mason used to say we should not blame Reagan if things went wrong, because after all it is not his field.) However, Obama used to teach constitutional law, and he still claimed it would be “unprecedented” if the Supreme Court invalidated Obamacare. He should have known the court has rejected more than 100 laws over the years.

Whether Obama’s statements reflect ignorance or dishonesty we cannot know for certain. It is strange, however, that American voters do not seem to care much that politicians routinely say things they should know is not true. That is not the way we operate at the personal. level. We would not knowingly enter into a business partnership with a person we believe cannot be trusted.

In the case of a presidential candidate one explanation is we only have two people to choose from, and both may be dishonest. Another factor is we want the candidate to do something for us once he gets in office. To accomplish this task the candidate must get more votes than the opponent. If he must tell lies to get votes we consider that a good thing. It is the end result that matters.

John Kay writes in the Financial Times that when we cling to credibility in a democracy we may endanger stability (The Dogma of’ Credibility’ Now Endangers Stability.) For example, if central bankers adopt easy money policies people have two choices. They can change their behavior in such a way as to adjust to future inflation, or they can elect another set of politicians who will change the policies. That is what is happening in Europe today. Centrist politicians, by their attachment to the dogma of credibility, may bring into office extremists who will cause extreme instability.

Credibility, however, works both ways. Reagan refused to let the air traffic controllers get their jobs back. He said they broke the law and had to pay the price for it. After the Soviet Union collapsed it was learned that this action impressed the people in the Kremlin. This fellow actually means what he says, they concluded. If Reagan had been in office, instead of Jimmy Carter, would the Soviets have invaded Afghanistan? And, if Afghanistan had not been invaded there might not have been a bin Laden, and therefore no 9/11.

Ferry’s arguments are not convincing, in my view, because the survival instinct is probably much stronger than our capacity for altruism. The belief that human beings are not bound by their nature, but instead have the capacity for perfectibility is probably more harmful than good. Ferry attacks communism and nationalism as false attempts to achieve salvation through devotion to an ideal. Ferry says Rousseau and Kant believed in freedom because they rejected the idea there was any higher authority than the individual conscience. The problem is that Rousseau especially believed society should be guided by a general will and that indoctrination should be used to make sure individual opinion is subordinated to the general good. It seems to me that Rousseau was a supporter of totalitarianism, rather than democracy.

In America, politics has become highly confrontational because its pits the “continentals,” who are guided by theory, against the “empiricists,” who focus on how people actually behave. While people have a spark of humanity history tells us that egotism is by far the strongest driving force. If an egotist and an altruist are on a plane that is about to crash and there is only one parachute is there any doubt they will fight over the parachute? So-called humanists are naive and pretentious, whereas the empiricists and traditionalists (today’s conservatives) are the realists.

Ferry writes that the ancient Greeks equated virtue with talent and this caused their society to be hierarchical and unequal. Humanists claim that we should be judged by our willingness to use our free will to overcome our egotism, and in that sense we are all equal. What this suggests is an equality based on outcomes, rather than equality of opportunity. It is an invitation to the dumbing down of society by means of disincentives to effort. The talented should be forced to carry weights so they do not get too far ahead of the slowest moving in society. In that sense, the humanists are closer to the Christian ideal that the meek shall inherit the earth, instead of the Greek idea that talent equals virtue.

One problem is this is all theory, rather than reality. Those who profess to favor equality of outcomes really are interested in domination. They want a society that is managed from the center, and replaces individual decision-making with the opinions of experts. Barack Obama says society should be organized like the military. Citizens should follow orders from the generals. This is in accordance with the teaching of Rousseau. He said the one thing teachers should try to suppress is the imagination of students, because if they try to think on their own they will not conform to the general will.

John Adams said the one thing we all have in common is the desire to be superior. That is why conservatives like to examine the behavior of Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic Senate candidate from Massachusetts. She is the role model for secular humanists. She believes consumers must be protected from exploitation by greedy bankers. Bankers must be forced to play by the rules. But she does not feel compelled to play by the rules. She falsely claims she is a Native American in order to advance her career. Secular humanism promotes hypocrisy, arrogance, and a desire to dominate. Or is it just that we all behave like humans?

In his May 7th column, David Brooks wrote that he was on the side of the structuralists against the cyclicalists (The Structural Revolution.) The cyclicalists argue that the economy is operating well below capacity and the way to deal with this is to have the government borrow and spend more. The structuralists look at the cyclicalists and shrug, Brooks writes. He says it is not necessarily wrong to bash excessive austerity, but it is essential to understand the core problems are structural, not cyclical. Globalization is one of the structural problems (it is cheaper to manufacture things in emerging economies,) and another is a decline in human capital.

Krugman’s response does not enhance the credibility of the economics profession. He argues that in 1939 there was concern about our structural problems, but they were wiped away by World War II. To my mind that is just plain silly. The trouble with economists is they are too ideological. They tend to ignore facts that do not fit their ideology. There are basically two types, those who think government should control the economic resources, and those who want to rely on the private sector. When economics is intertwined with politics it is impossible to claim there is a science of economics.

In a previous column Krugman argued that confidence does not matter in economics. It is only about the numbers. When demand declines in the private sector government must make up the shortfall. It is hard to accept this conclusion because history tells us the rule of law had to precede the industrial revolution. In “Why Nations Fail” the authors write about an Englishman named Lee who invented a knitting machine during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. He did not want to invest in the machine unless he could get a patent. To his surprise, Elizabeth said no to the idea, because it would mean all the women who were knitting at home would lose their jobs. A sensible person might well reason that today we have a demand problem and a confidence problem. Why should business invest when any future profits may be taxed away to pay for our burgeoning debt?

One problem with government-oriented economists is they do not seem to grasp the concept of return on investment. It matters how money is spent. An incompetent teacher does not add value, for example. It does not help to have lots of people with degrees in psychology when the economy needs more petroleum engineers. Business says they have lots of job openings, but have trouble finding qualified applicants. People like Krugman refuse to pay attention to facts that do not fit the ideology.

Philip Stephens writes in the Financial Times today that Greece has to choose between two evils (Greece is Falling Out of Europe.) They can leave the eurozone or accept the austerity package already negotiated. They seem to think there is a third way, but there may not be. Economists who say austerity is not the answer argue that wages in Germany should rise. That may not help Greece because the Germans may not want to buy more Greek olives. German tourists may not want to visit Greece because it is not safe. The structural problem in Europe relates to the reality that counties like Greece, Spain, and Portugal do not have much to sell.

Krugman is also annoying because he tends to resort to personal attacks. He says people like Brooks (he does not mention his name) are obsessed with the idea there are structural problems that require reform. In Krugman’s view there is no room for debate, because he has all the right answers. Nevertheless, there is probably some truth to the notion that Brooks tries too hard to be acceptable to both sides. It does not work. He will never be able to placate the hard left. Matt Taibbi, for example, writes in Rolling Stone that Brooks is “really a sap.” For Brooks,’rising above partisanship’ always means “not criticizing the rich.” (Brooks had written he was a sap because he believed Barack Obama when he said he wanted to be above partisanship.) How is this possible when there is only one right answer?

As a way of dealing with the inevitability of death secular humanism must be less satisfying than the idea that our soul and body will live forever in eternity. But, for many this is all we have left to cling to, since science has caused us to doubt previous beliefs. The Greek idea that when we die we remain part of the cosmos is not a myth, but the problem is the Greeks also believed we are here for a purpose. Those who were intelligent and educated were supposed to devote their time to improving the community (polis.). This contradicts the need for personal autonomy, which allows us to enjoy life fully. The ideal situation is to be able to choose our life style, and still feel we are good, moral individuals. Secular humanism is the best idea we have concocted so far.

There is very little dissent in Hollywood, because all religions demand conformity. New myths have been created to replace the myths associated with traditional beliefs. One is that diversity is an immutable good. Another is the need to redeem wrongs committed by those who were here before us (which unfortunately means contempt for our ancestors.) Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic candidate for the Senate from Massachusetts, has become a Hollywood favorite. Harvard needed to show it was committed to diversity, and Ms. Warren helped fill the need because she claimed to be a Native American. It also served to advance Ms. Warren’s career.

One aspect of the new religion is that while the morally correct causes are pre-determined the question of whether we are following the precepts is left to the individual. Ms. Warren says she is middle class in “her heart,” even though her net worth shows she is in the top 1 %, which is classified as the oppressor class.

Today, diversity is no longer looked on as a way to make up for past wrongs. Instead, it is supposed to enhance the quality of our educational system. It is impossible to prove this is true by using scientific methods. Is Harvard really able to provide superior education because it has a native American on its staff? And, how can education be improved by expecting all professors to have the same beliefs on matters such as the importance of diversity?

It is difficult to understand how our ability to cope with the certainty of death can be improved by pretending to believe in ideas that are really only opinions, rather than absolute truths. It is more likely that our self-esteem suffers when we insist on lying to ourselves.

Kirsch notes that it is clear that Obama’s self-image has little connection with Eliot’s fatalism. His memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” shows that his thinking is based on the opposite principle. Eliot was a proud reactionary, who dreamed of’an ethnically and religiously pure society,’whereas Obama’s opinions are tied to the “fluidity of identity.” (This is another way of saying that Obama was confused by his surroundings and has spent his life building an imaginary identity.)

Kirsch says it is rare for a politician, let alone a president, to reflect on the essential futility of our strivings and still remain focused on politics in a liberal democracy, which deals with the distribution of worldly rewards. Kirsch adds that it is also clear that having this kind of mind is not necessarily helpful when it comes to day-to-day governing. Kirsch writes:

“The big revelation of the Obama presidency, for intellectuals, is that his authenticity and irony have not succeeded in making him a transformative figure–that the quality of the president can’t be directly deduced from the quality of the man.”

The editorial writers at the Times necessarily accept that Obama is the standard bearer for progressive ideology, but they are willing to express their deep disappointment regarding his weak leadership style (Campaigning Beyond Inspiration.) Although Obama’s general goals are right it is not enough to “tick through dreams that will die in Congress.” Obama needs to spend more time persuading dubious and disillusioned voters that he can achieve these goals, says the Times.

What are the right goals? The Times says they are the following:

“More college degrees, better teachers, growth in manufacturing, investments in clean energy and preservation of gains in health care and women’s rights.”

The Times says that what is wrong with our politics is that “Obama’s view of what might happen with a robust use of government power was intertwined with the shadow of a Republican Party that has fought every attempt to use that power.”

Politics, according to the Times, is about good people with correct ideas being confronted by bad people trying to implement incorrect ideas. Politics has become a new form of religion.

To understand how this happened it is helpful to read a book, by a French author, Luc Ferry (A Brief History of Thought.) Ferry says the biggest problem human beings must deal with is the knowledge that we are all mortal. This is an uncomfortable thought that leads to much anxiety. Ferry explains how Greek philosophy was overcome by Christianity because the latter offered a better solution for this problem. The Stoics focused on human beings as part of the cosmic order, but Christianity went way beyond that by teaching that if we live a virtuous life we are, in fact, immortal. Both our soul and our body will be resurrected, if we love God. The supremacy of Christianity lasted for 1500 years, until the emergence of science which demonstrated that the cosmos is not as orderly as we thought. A new order must be created, using scientific principles. Secular humanism is now the new religion of the West.

In the world of science what is old tends to lose its usefulness. Once we have discovered a more advanced micro-chip we get rid of the old transistors. That is why the Federalist papers are not required reading in political science courses. The Constitution was written for a by-gone age. What is needed today are scientific studies that will explain how we must deal with current problems.

Politics remains contentious because some people still believe that human nature has not changed over the centuries. Conservatives refuse to accept that government has all the right answers. Instead, they fear government will use its enhanced powers to exploit its citizens.

It is an illusion that we can turn to the experts for answers. More college degrees may not be the answer if what we get are counselors and psychologists, rather than scientists and engineers. What we have then are student loans that cannot be repaid. It is hard to get good teachers when the focus is on job security, rather than teaching ability. Good manufacturing jobs may be beyond reach if industry is forced to buy expensive electricity from solar and wind farms.

Elizabeth Warren, who is running for the Senate in Massachusetts, is a good example of what has happened in our culture. We are told it is important that we all play by the rules, but Ms. Warren advanced her career by claiming she was a Native American. She became a Harvard professor because it was a way for the school to reach its diversity goal. In the process, a more qualified person may have been by-passed. Ms. Warren says she is not a wealthy individual, despite her high net worth. In any event, she argues that she is middle class “in her heart.” Today, we deal with anxiety about our mortality by enjoying life fully, and pretending to support causes that are morally correct. Instead of loving our neighbors as ourselves we condemn them for clinging to evil ideas.

Ms. Warren became a favorite of Barack Obama because she claims to be a defender of the oppressed 99 % and opposed to the oppressive behavior of the top 1 %. She has bragged about providing “the intellectual foundation” of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Aside from being opposed to privilege she also argues that in America no one becomes rich “on his own.” Even if we build a factory we must move the goods on public roads. America’s success is based on collective action, not individual initiative.

Another reason Ms. Warren is a White House favorite is she worked hard to set up the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency. She would have become its first administrator, but too many people in the Senate think she is too hostile to business.

It is interesting that Harvard Law School claimed Ms. Warren was a minority hire when she was made a professor in 1996. Carr writes that when she was asked last week for proof of her Indian ancestry she answered it had been part of family ‘”lore.” The Boston Herald writes that after a mad scramble to respond to the charge she used her minority status to advance her career the campaign came up with a link that dates back five generations. Her great-great-great grandmother was Cherokee. Christopher Child, a noted genealogist, said this makes Warren’s ancestry 1/32nd Cherokee. (This is enough to become a Harvard professor, but not sufficient to operate a casino.)

Carr writes that when the campaign began Warren was touted as someone who had risen from poverty in Oklahoma City. Since then, “the truth has trickled out, and the narrative has evolved.” She came from a middle class family. She drove to her high school in a white MG.

Last week, Warren released four years of tax returns. Even the liberal Boston Globe had to admit she and her husband are in the top 1 % category. Joint income is nearly $1 million and net worth is between $5 and $ $ 15 million. Last January Warren said she was not wealthy. Now she says middle class is not determined by numbers. Instead, “it is about a place in your heart.”

Warren claims she wants the wealthy to pay more in taxes. It so happens that in Massachusetts there is a voluntary check-off on the tax return which can be used by people who think the government should have more money to spend. Carr writes that concerned citizens who wish to pay the old rate of 5. 85 %, instead of the current 5. 3 % rate, can do so. When asked, Warren said she had opted to pay the lower rate.

Despite Harvard’s reputation graduates are not popular with working people in Massachusetts, according to Carr. There is an old joke which says “you can always tell a Harvard man, but you can’t tell him much.”

Admittedly, West’s choice of language was unwise, partly because it brings to mind the tactics of Joe McCarthy. West said he was really referring to membership in the Congressional Progressive Caucus. It would have been better if he had just talked about the ideological similarity between communists and progressives.

The starting point would be the belief there is only one correct political viewpoint. In fact, that is the theme of the Mann/Ornstein article. They echo the opinion of Linda Greenhouse, the New York Times journalist, that people in the media need not abide by the convention that journalists should be objective and even-handed. Mann and Ornstein offer this advice to the press:

“Don’t seek professional safety, through the even-handed, unfiltered presentation of opposing views.”

(It is odd that the authors feel it necessary to give such advice, because this is what the mainstream press has been doing all along, with the Times taking the lead. Ms. Greenhouse was unusually blunt about it, but Paul Krugman also attacked David Brooks recently for trying so hard to protect his centrist credentials. Thomas Friedman, another Times regular, frequently expresses his admiration for China’s communist leaders, because “they get things done.”)

A second similarity is the belief in linear progress, using the dialectical process. Once “progress” is achieved it is irreversible. Barack Obama, on numerous occasions, has referred to the failed ideas of the past. He even thinks oil, gas and coal are yesterday’s fuels, which we must leave behind because of the superiority of wind and solar.

Another common feature is the belief in a powerful, centralized state. That requires doing away with the federalist system (states rights), and by-passing our obsolete Constitution.

Then there is the belief collective effort is better than individual effort. Obama even says that salvation is collective, not individual. This is tied to the conviction that expert opinion is always superior to individual choice.

Progressives and communists share the belief that coercion is required to reach national goals. In the case of Obamacare the logic is that everyone will eventually get sick and need the services of hospitals and doctors. That means all individuals participate in the health care industry. The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce, and this means individual participation in health care can be regulated.

Since everyone has to eat we all participate in the food industry. We all die eventually, so we participate in the funeral business. Obviously, we all live somewhere, so we participate in the housing industry. Everything that a person does can, therefore, be regulated by the federal government.

Progressives and communists share a distaste for the capitalist system. It leads to exploitation and inequality, which is contrary to the ideal of social justice. Yesterday, the Times had a front-page attack on Apple, because the company prefers to report earnings in low tax states. It prefers Nevada over California, for example. Normally, the Times goes after oil or insurance companies, instead of technology firms. After all, iPhones are not an absolute necessity.

Progressive ideas have always appealed to intellectuals, who are enthralled with the concept of social justice. That is why liberals had such a difficult time accepting that Alger Hiss had been a spy for the Soviet Union. They preferred to think the case against him was trumped up by conservatives to discredit the New Deal.

A letter writer to the Financial Times says people who voted for Obama in 2008 have lost their bet, because Obama has shown he lacks the ability to lead (America Has Lost the Wager of Electing Obama.) The writer (Richard Ruda) disagrees with Edward Luce’s contention that Obama might win if he can find the right campaign slogan. The problem, says Ruda, is Obama’s failure to act with greater decisiveness in both international affairs and in the domestic political arena.

Ruda says Obama’s fundamental problem is that “he has no taste or affinity whatsoever for politics.” As evidence he cites Obama’s decision to let Democratic leaders in Congress design the health reform program. It turned out to be a deeply flawed process, and the political results were disastrous.

Interestingly, Ms. Noonan also says Obama is a flawed politician, even though many observers seem to think Obama is an effective campaigner. That is why some Republicans are nervous about the November outcome. Ms. Noonan, however, says she finds his speeches boring. He is always talking, but what comes out is one platitude after another. She writes:

“But it still matters that the president doesn’t have a coherent agenda, or a political philosophy that is really clear to people. To the extent he has a philosophy it tends to pop up furtively in stray comments and then go away.”

Ms. Noonan argues that the best politicians are usually those who like to be among people. She says it is surprising that a person who seems bored with politicking has managed to capture the highest political office in the land. Politics is a fleshy profession, says Ms. Noonan. It is about hugging, kissing, and shaking hands. It involves contact. It is odd to have a Democratic president who does not seem to like humans that much.

Because Obama has so few accomplishments to point to he must resort to coalition building. At a time when America is burdened by huge debts and lack of jobs women are asked to support Obama because he will guarantee access to contraceptives. Rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline is supposed to nail down support from environmentalists. The appeal to Hispanics centers on the Justice Department’s challenge to the Arizona immigration law. This, says Ms. Noonan, has proved embarrassing, because the arguments presented are so weak. The Obama administration is, in effect, claiming that sporadic assistance in enforcing federal laws is acceptable, but Arizona is going too far with its offer to provide “systematic” assistance.

Ms. Noonan concludes by saying the 2012 election may be simpler than we think, because it is about Obama.

“Many voters thought Mr. Romney would be better for growth than Mr. Obama. Considerably more thought the economy would ‘get worse’ under Mr. Obama than Mr. Romney.”

When we say America is a 50-50 nation we mean that voters have trouble making up their minds about which direction to take. Should we place our trust in government or the private sector? Government offers fairness and security, but most people understand that government depends on resources extracted from the private sector. On fairness, people largely agree with Obama, but efficiency matters more, says Luce. Government’s ability to continue to tax and spend is suspect, so job security in the public sector may be an illusory goal. Luce writes that it would be rash for the Obama campaign to share the widespread assumption that Romney is a soft target. Romney can come across as intelligent and competent, says Luce.

It is ironic that FT, a business newspaper, favors Obama even though he wants government to take the lead. Luce says the slogans used by Obama so far have not been effective. He has tried “Winning the Future,” and it quickly vanished. Next came “An America Built to Last,” but we have not heard much about that recently. Probably the most accurate slogans used are such things as’ We are All In This Together,’and “You are on Your Own,” which he attributes to Republicans. Obama also likes to talk about the need for collective salvation, as opposed to personal salvation.

Most of the media, including the FT and Luce, thinks the solution is to get behind Obama’s government directed economy. Obama says compromise with Republicans is impossible because they want to take us back to the failed policies of the past. But, America is in a mess today because government policy has favored consumption over investment. The housing crisis is the end result of a government-private sector partnership to promote home ownership.

The Wall Street Journal reviews a book about what happened when America was a divided nation before the civil war (Statesmanship in a Divided Era.) The books’s author is Fergus M. Bordewich, and the reviewer is David S. Reynolds. Compromise was attempted to prevent a conflagration, but the issue was too serious for this approach to work. America needed to make a choice. First, there was the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850, and this was followed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854. Finally, the die was cast with the Dred Scott decision in 1857, when the Supreme Court said blacks could not become citizens.

Mr. Reynolds, a professor at the CUNY Graduate Center, says the compromise effort at least served to delay conflict until capable leaders like Lincoln and Grant emerged. We cannot know whether Romney is competent enough to deal with today’s crisis, but America’s future is better left to entrepreneurs than bureaucrats.