Posts Tagged liberalism
I haven’t been on top of the blog for a bit, and hence have not gotten around to commenting about the 2010 elections yet. So, here goes.
The election results have been out for a while, so I’ll give them little attention. The Republicans won fairly big, and by a decent margin. The GOP now controls the House and has a good standing of the Senate. The big win was over 600 state legislature seats around the country, meaning that conservatives have had major successes in local campaigns and offices. Since this is where most of the governance should be coming from, this is a good thing.
But what I am interested in is not the office numbers or even conservative/ Tea Party reactions to the elections, but the reactions from the left. I am interested in them because they confirm the hubristic attitude that has been the primary complaint of the Tea Party, and show that the aristocratic elites on the left have opted to continue their pathologically narcissistic politics and ignore just why the people have rejected them. 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 …
A little while ago, I received the following comment to my post regarding the desperation with which the media are trying to cast the Tea Party as some hotbed of racially motivated violence.
Since their inception the Teaparty crowd (not a movement since they do have the numbers or clout) have been “haters not debaters”. In my opinion this is what the small portions of the republican party of “birthers, baggers and blowhards” have brought you. They are good at “Follow the Leader” of their dullard leaders, they listen to Beck, Hedgecock, Hannity, O’Reilly, Rush and Savage and the rest of the Blowhards. Are you surprise at what they do when you know what they think? The world is complicated and most republicans (Hamiliton, Lincoln, Roosevelt) believe that we should use government a little to increase social mobility, now its about dancing around the claim of government is the problem. The sainted Reagan passed the biggest tax increase in American history and as a result federal employment increased, but facts are lost when mired in mysticism and superstition. Although some republicans are trying to distant themselves from this fringe most of them are just going along and fanning the flames. Read the rest of this entry »
One of the reasons liberals tend to do such an incredibly poor job of governing is that they fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the American people. Given that liberals also fundamentally misunderstand Christianity, the Constitution, economics, and human nature, I guess it’s no big surprise that they don’t get the American people either. Come to think of it, I guess it’s pretty much par for the course. I mean, let’s face it, without conservatives around to help keep them in check, liberals would utterly destroy everything that is good about America and most of them would be baffled about what they were doing wrong right up until the end.
Socialism, and left-wing politics in general, is based upon ignorance of basic human nature. In fact, one of the flaws of socialist theory is that is presupposes that there is not human nature, that we are all products of our environments. This leads to the conclusion that if the perfect environment can be created, then perfect people will result. But people aren’t like that, and failing to understand that fact only increases the lack of connection between liberals and the American people.