Arthur Larsen was the leading conservative intellectual voice in the Eisenhower administration and gave yet another fascinating interview that discussed many of the same topics in vogue today but from a point of view that has left the conservative movement these days. Look at this statement for instance:
WALLACE: One of the major factors in whatever direction our society takes is our Supreme Court. Now, you're a man who constantly writes about the sanctity of private property and free private enterprise. What was your reaction when the Supreme Court not too long ago ruled that the Dupont Company had to dispose of its nearly 3 billion dollars' worth of stock in General Motors, stock that it had bought legally and that had appreciated in value over the years?
LARSON: This, of course... I don't know the exact situation or merits of that particular case, but this general kind of case is one of the really classical illustrations of the principle that I mentioned a minute ago, the paradox that to have true freedom, you've got to have restraints on freedom: the antitrust acts, the restraint on monopoly, is a perfect example of this.
For if you let free enterprise in some cases, in the case of growing businesses, get bigger and bigger and bigger until they have reached monopoly proportions, then you have the paradox that freedom is in danger of destroying itself because then the monopoly can turn around and proceed to destroy the freedoms of smaller people, raise prices again where they used to cut prices to get their monopoly and undo all the things and do the exact opposite of all the things that led to their creation.
Andre Gide used, I think, a very nice illustration, he once said, talking about art being the result of restraint, he once said, "Take a kite and put a string on it so that you restrain it. It will soar. Cut the string... cut the restraint... the kite falls to earth." And I think so it is with a great many of our freedoms... that if they don't have that little restraint, they don't soar.
Now reading that statement by a leading conservative intellectual one has to ask where in the world did this type of critical thinking go in the last 30 years? Where did the connection between freedom and restraint of freedom disappear in our national discourse? Where did the idea that unbridled freedom end up destroying freedom itself go in this orgy of greed and social Darwinism? Somewhere between the 1950s and today, corporate America turned into an international power that crushed freedoms while providing us with cheap goods or material wealth and comforts in return for taking from us the freedoms associated with upward mobility. The conflict he discusses with Wallace is that between our desire not to be controlled by government yet desire to have government perform certain functions in diametric opposition to our innate fear of government. This is what the Tea Party is about. The other side is the OWS movement. One side says that all government is bad yet they also receive copious benefits as a direct result of government. The other side says our freedoms are gone because of too little government or ineffective government whose job it is to protect us from concentrated power. How can the two be reconciled? He quotes Lincoln "that the role of government is to do for people what needs to be done but what they cannot do as well for themselves, or do at all. " Now the difference is slight but important. Can the individual stop a company from polluting? No. But the government can which is why we have the EPA. Can the individual get affordable health care after the age of 65? No, but the government can under ride it and provide it for you via Medicare. Can the individual make a decision to smoke marijuana or not? Yes of course he can which is why many object to this intrusion by the government upon a freedom which they have taken from us unjustly. Can you imagine this type of discussion at a presidential debate? Only Obama could honestly engage at this level. Newt has the ability but not the character to honestly discuss these without descending into childishness. A Clinton could do this and to a lesser degree, so could Reagan. But this crop? No way.