Posts Tagged aristocracy
Michael Applebaum at American Thinker takes on the myth that Democrats are pushing that Americans are better off in the hands of “experts,” whom we should allow to run the country, as they can do it better than us. While we are told that we just don’t know what’s best for us, and that these experts do, and therefore should be put in the position of telling us what to do, Applebaum finds evidence that many of them aren’t as smart as they pretend to be: Read the rest of this entry »
Nicole Russell at the American Spectator makes a great point about the Obamas’ constant admonitions that Americans need the Federal Government to help them eat better, while nonchalantly breaking their own rules.
When President Obama indulges in fast food while traveling he exhorts interested onlookers: “Don’t tell Michelle.” The fit First Lady is, of course, an advocate of healthy foods and outspoken about childhood obesity. She had her own “Don’t tell Barack” moment recently, when she stopped at a diner in Milwaukee and had classic greasy fare: a burger and fries. Mrs. Obama’s meal really wouldn’t be anyone else’s business were it not for her own aspiration to rewrite the nation’s menus. Read the rest of this entry »
So a bunch of Leftist elitists academics held a “conference” in order to analyze the Tea Party movement in order to confirm their accusations of racism better understand the movement as a social phenomenon. Dave Weigel at Slate presented the happenings at this elitist echo chamber conference, and John Hawkings at Right Wing News promptly fisked it to death.
Of course, the “experts” deduced that the Tea Party is popular because it appeals to right-wing anger and racism. Read the rest of this entry »
Obama believes that the state is the originator of all “rights.” He believes that it’s perfectly valid for him to get together with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and declare that free health care is a “right.” But rights don’t work that way. The danger of this statist view is that, what the state giveth, it can taketh away. A state that can create “rights” out of thin air can erase them just as easily. Think you have a right to self defense? Not if Obama and the gun haters get their way. Think you have a right to your property? Not when the redistributionists decide that it’s unfair for you to have more while others have less. This is why Obama refuses to acknowledge the origins of our rights, and why his deliberate ignorance is so dangerous. Read the rest of this entry »
Timothy Sandefur at the Volokh Conspiracy raises a point that should be obvious — especially to Leftists who decry “white privilege” — that regulations on business place a greater burden upon minority and poor business owners that do not have the influential political ties and greater wealth that allow large companies to navigate these obstacles.
Intrusive business regulations have a disproportionately negative impact on the poor and members of minority groups, who lack the political influence that whereby wealthy corporations and politically well-connected people are able to obtain special government favors. Nobody has done better scholarship on this point than Volokh Conspiracy blogger David Bernstein. The historical examples of the abuse of licensing laws and other regulations to oppress racial minorities are legion, and depressing. But they aren’t surprising. The lesson of public choice theory is that when government can redistribute wealth or opportunities, that power will fall into the hands of politically well-connected groups, who use it to their own advantage at the expense of less favored groups.
Sandefur provides some historical and legal examples of how these policies hamper minorities, often intentionally.
One thing that astonished me most about the Roman Polanski rape case is how many Hollywood stars rushed to his defense. But Hollywood is a bastion of liberalism, embracing the free love and zero-consequence attitudes that were pioneered by ’60 radicals. Gwenneth Paltrow’s recent admission that even she has been propositioned by a casting-couch director only highlights the matter of how degenerate (and blatantly sexist) Hollywood culture is. Read the rest of this entry »
Henry Oliner at the American Thinker takes a look at leftist policies and the results thereof, and notices something that I’ve been seeing for a while: they’re encouraging the formation of a new left-wing aristocratic class.
While the social engineers decry the hardening and widening of discrepancies in income, this is true only if you look at the categories as static groups. As Thomas Sowell notes, when you look beyond the groups at individuals you find a fluid and mobile society. Few in the bottom tier stay there, and many in the upper tier drop out of that category.Focusing only on the income categories ignores the social mobility that characterizes America’s success. Unfortunately, the growth in government, taxes, and regulation damages that social mobility and hardens the social order. The wealthy will focus on retaining and protecting their wealth, reducing the capital that funds the opportunity for the poorer to acquire wealth. The efficient creation and allocation of capital that we call capitalism is the most effective, productive, unbiased, and sustainable instrument of redistribution in history. It was this new social order that toppled the aristocracy in Europe and made America the wealth creation engine that it is. It was this machine that attracted the poor from the rest of the work to create their own fortune.It is harshly ironic that this president who so openly preached redistribution will more likely hinder it. It is the young who will pay more for health care and get less, who will have to pay the interest on this record debt, and who will be penalized the most for reaching to the next income bracket.It is also noteworthy that this president’s policies will more likely help the large corporations that he demonizes than the small business that not only more effectively redistribute the wealth, but also create most of the new jobs we so desperately need. It is the large companies getting bailed out and the small businesses with higher variable costs that will suffer more from higher taxes and mandates. It is much easier to shut down a business with lower fixed costs, leaving less competition to the established companies.
Interesting historical note: the Republican Party was so named because its founders wanted to restore republican ideals, which the Democratic party was eroding in favor of creating a white, landed aristocracy. Oh, how history repeats …
Nancy Pelosi is better than the rest of us. She knows what’s best, and we should defer to her wisdom. We don’t need to know the details of Obamacare, or the consequences or effects of it — we just need to trust that it’s good, because she said so.
Actually, that’s not what she said. This is:
”It’s like the back of the refrigerator. You see all these wires and the rest,” said Pelosi. “All you need to know is, you open the door. The light goes on. You open this door, you go through a whole different path, in terms of access to quality, affordable healthcare for all Americans.” Read the rest of this entry »