Maligned Motives of Lefty Liberals and Disingenuous Democrats
I have been called out on the motives of Lefty Liberals (LLs) and Disingenuous Democrats (DDs) I attributed to them in my last post.
I wrote:
"In the name of "helping" the voters, who they (the DDs) evidently believe cannot think for themselves, the lefties are trying to set up a very complex plan that will ensnare everyone in the country in an inescapable funnel of rules, regulations, taxes and penalties that will devolve into a government-run, single-payer health insurance system. Private insurance companies will be driven out of the business (collateral damage to achieve The Greater Good?)."
My clear-thinking critic asked me if I really believed that the intent behind such big-government take-overs is malicious - i.e. self-aggrandizement, power acquisition and social restructuring - on the part of the LLs. As I told said critic, I do not believe most supporters of such programs are malicious. They are generally well-meaning but delusional about the actual outcome of these schemes.
There are some whose motives I do not trust, however. Career politicians do look to be re-elected, and the more goodies (government handouts) they can be seen to provide voters, the more votes they can expect to accrue. Some of them also believe in what they themselves call "social justice," which is an attempt to engineer equal outcomes (as opposed to equal opportunity) for all citizens. To achieve that goal, they have to take control of all inputs (fruits of your labor, which is to say, your income and assets) in order to redistribute them to those with less. I consider this motive also to be malicious in that they use the power of coercion by government to steal your possessions and give them to others.
I have struggled for a long time trying to fathom the thinking process that leads the LLs to believe it is their job to "lead" where voters do not want to go. Today, an excellent op-ed piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal that clarifies this question. Written by John Steele Gordon, it is entitled "Obama and the Liberal Paradigm." In summary, he says and I quote:
"The basic liberal paradigm hasn't shifted in a hundred years, while the world we live in has changed utterly since the late 19th century, when modern liberalism was born.
"What is that [liberal] paradigm? The basic premise is that the population is divided into three groups. By far the largest group consists of ordinary people. They are good, God fearing and hard working. But they are also often ignorant of their true self-interest ("What's the matter with Kansas?") and thus easily misled. They are also politically weak and thus need to be protected from the second group, which is politically strong.
"The second group, far smaller, are the affluent, successful businessmen, corporate executives and financiers. Capitalists in other words. They are the establishment and it is the establishment that, by definition, runs the country. They are, in the liberal paradigm, smart, ruthless and totally self-interested. They care only about personal gain.
"And then there is the third group, those few, those happy few, that band of brothers, the educated and enlightened liberals, who understand what is really going on and want to help the members of the first group to live a better and more satisfying life. Unlike the establishment, which supposedly cares only for itself, liberals supposedly care for society as a whole and have no personal self-interest.
"This paradigm, while never wholly accurate and, of course, always self-serving (as political philosophies tend to be), had a basis in reality in the late 19th century. Then, industrial capitalism was being born and the rules needed to ensure that it worked for all, not just the capitalists, were only beginning to evolve.
"A few lived at an incredible level of affluence, such as can be seen in the summer "cottages" in Newport, R.I., and had disproportionate influence with government. In 1900 one-third of the Senate were millionaires at a time when a million dollars made you very, very rich. But millions of Americans lived in abject poverty, toiling long, dangerous hours as industrial workers or as sharecroppers in the impoverished South. These millions were indeed ignorant and weak.
"Between 1947 and the mid-1960s, the civil-rights movement overturned centuries of racial discrimination and greatly narrowed the gap between American claims of liberty and equality and American reality.
"By the 1970s, the percentage of Americans living in poverty had been greatly reduced and those still below the poverty line were receiving assistance such as food stamps, housing assistance, and refundable tax credits that lifted most of them above the line. Race was no longer a barrier to accomplishment. The majority of American families now lived at a level of affluence and financial security known only to a few in the early 20th century.
"The liberal revolution of the middle third of that century was, in short, one of the greatest—and most peaceful—political triumphs in history. And because of it, most of the sheep are now more than able to look out for themselves, having the means and education to do so. The wolves have been fitted for electric collars that largely keep them from straying into the wrong fold.
"Now if only someone would tell the shepherds about their own success."
Now I understand.
And they still need to be stopped.
I wrote:
"In the name of "helping" the voters, who they (the DDs) evidently believe cannot think for themselves, the lefties are trying to set up a very complex plan that will ensnare everyone in the country in an inescapable funnel of rules, regulations, taxes and penalties that will devolve into a government-run, single-payer health insurance system. Private insurance companies will be driven out of the business (collateral damage to achieve The Greater Good?)."
My clear-thinking critic asked me if I really believed that the intent behind such big-government take-overs is malicious - i.e. self-aggrandizement, power acquisition and social restructuring - on the part of the LLs. As I told said critic, I do not believe most supporters of such programs are malicious. They are generally well-meaning but delusional about the actual outcome of these schemes.
There are some whose motives I do not trust, however. Career politicians do look to be re-elected, and the more goodies (government handouts) they can be seen to provide voters, the more votes they can expect to accrue. Some of them also believe in what they themselves call "social justice," which is an attempt to engineer equal outcomes (as opposed to equal opportunity) for all citizens. To achieve that goal, they have to take control of all inputs (fruits of your labor, which is to say, your income and assets) in order to redistribute them to those with less. I consider this motive also to be malicious in that they use the power of coercion by government to steal your possessions and give them to others.
I have struggled for a long time trying to fathom the thinking process that leads the LLs to believe it is their job to "lead" where voters do not want to go. Today, an excellent op-ed piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal that clarifies this question. Written by John Steele Gordon, it is entitled "Obama and the Liberal Paradigm." In summary, he says and I quote:
"The basic liberal paradigm hasn't shifted in a hundred years, while the world we live in has changed utterly since the late 19th century, when modern liberalism was born.
"What is that [liberal] paradigm? The basic premise is that the population is divided into three groups. By far the largest group consists of ordinary people. They are good, God fearing and hard working. But they are also often ignorant of their true self-interest ("What's the matter with Kansas?") and thus easily misled. They are also politically weak and thus need to be protected from the second group, which is politically strong.
"The second group, far smaller, are the affluent, successful businessmen, corporate executives and financiers. Capitalists in other words. They are the establishment and it is the establishment that, by definition, runs the country. They are, in the liberal paradigm, smart, ruthless and totally self-interested. They care only about personal gain.
"And then there is the third group, those few, those happy few, that band of brothers, the educated and enlightened liberals, who understand what is really going on and want to help the members of the first group to live a better and more satisfying life. Unlike the establishment, which supposedly cares only for itself, liberals supposedly care for society as a whole and have no personal self-interest.
"This paradigm, while never wholly accurate and, of course, always self-serving (as political philosophies tend to be), had a basis in reality in the late 19th century. Then, industrial capitalism was being born and the rules needed to ensure that it worked for all, not just the capitalists, were only beginning to evolve.
"A few lived at an incredible level of affluence, such as can be seen in the summer "cottages" in Newport, R.I., and had disproportionate influence with government. In 1900 one-third of the Senate were millionaires at a time when a million dollars made you very, very rich. But millions of Americans lived in abject poverty, toiling long, dangerous hours as industrial workers or as sharecroppers in the impoverished South. These millions were indeed ignorant and weak.
"Between 1947 and the mid-1960s, the civil-rights movement overturned centuries of racial discrimination and greatly narrowed the gap between American claims of liberty and equality and American reality.
"By the 1970s, the percentage of Americans living in poverty had been greatly reduced and those still below the poverty line were receiving assistance such as food stamps, housing assistance, and refundable tax credits that lifted most of them above the line. Race was no longer a barrier to accomplishment. The majority of American families now lived at a level of affluence and financial security known only to a few in the early 20th century.
"The liberal revolution of the middle third of that century was, in short, one of the greatest—and most peaceful—political triumphs in history. And because of it, most of the sheep are now more than able to look out for themselves, having the means and education to do so. The wolves have been fitted for electric collars that largely keep them from straying into the wrong fold.
"Now if only someone would tell the shepherds about their own success."
Now I understand.
And they still need to be stopped.
posted by alison @ 12:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home