Leftism

You Should Be Ashamed!

by

Mickey Kaus is a Liberal who will actually try to find out the facts. Kudos to him for that.

But he does occasionally descend into Left wing incoherence. A prime example is a short post entitled Ride My See-Saw. (Click on this link, and scroll down to the post at the 1:21 PM mark.)

Mr. Kaus is taken with the concept of “vertical ticket splitters”, people who don’t automatically cast all of their votes for one party. He attributes their motivation for doing this to guilt. People might vote for Obama in this election, but then carefully cast their remaining votes for Republicans because they feel guilty about…

Well, I’m not really sure why anyone feels guilt. Mr. Kaus seems to think that the bad feelings all flow from racism.

“M suggested that voters (especially white, swing voters) who don’t vote for Obama may feel guilty about it and compensate by voting for Democrats in downballot races (Senate and Congress). But the converse of this theory is equally interesting–voters who do pick Obama, may compensate or hedge for what they feel is a bold, guilt-expiating risk by picking Republicans downballot.”

(snip)

“…more people will be vertical ticket splitters because of the presence of Obama, who is not only an African American candidate–whom you might feel guilty about not picking–but a relatively unknown candidate whom you might want to hedge against, especially if you voted for him to avoid feeling guilty about not picking him (and then felt guilty about that).”

(An attempt was made to keep the original emphasis intact. The above is how Mr. Kaus wants you to see his work.)

This seems extremely odd to me. If someone is a racist, then by definition they genuinely believe that a person’s race disqualifies them in some way. Makes the minority candidate unable to do a decent job simply because of their heritage, so to speak.

Seen in this light, it becomes obvious that racists are not going to be effected in any way by guilty feelings. Why would anyone, racist or otherwise, feel guilty about voting for what they see as the more capable choice? If anything, racists would feel pride in voting for their prejudices because they would think that they are acting for the greater good. So why go on and on about how racists would feel guilt?

The constant harping on racism from the Left during this election appears to me to have two root causes.

It seems to me that one cause is pure projection from Liberals. They are going to vote for Obama not because they genuinely believe him to be the best qualified for the job, but due to some bizarre self loathing. White guilt, if you will. Since guilt is the most powerful motivator when they make their political choices, it seems obvious to them that everyone else must also have simmering pools of white hot shame bubbling just beneath the surface. If people just listened to the voice in their heads that said they must make up for being a piece of crap, then everyone would make the same choice. The correct choice!

The other is a cynical attempt to manipulate swing voters, a propaganda effort to make the Bradley Effect work for the Democrats. If swing voters can be convinced that they will be perceived as racists by voting for anyone other than Obama, maybe a significant percentage will vote for the candidate that they would otherwise feel is too inexperienced to handle the job. Pretty much force people to vote for the least qualified candidate.

I must confess, dear reader, that it makes me feel distinctly uncomfortable to climb up on my analyst’s couch and try to plumb the mental depths of complete strangers. Not only am I obviously unqualified, it also strikes me as the height of arrogance to even try. But I feel justified since the Left in general, and Mr. Kaus specifically, are not constrained to keep to their area of expertise.

To close, I would have to say that the only people who should be feeling guilty are the Liberals who scream “Racism!” at the drop of a hat. Have they no shame?

(Hat tip to Glenn.)

What More Could Ayers Have Done?

by

Sometime back, I ask a question: What would Ayers (or anyone else) have to have done and what unrepented beliefs would he have to still hold, such that Obama’s supporters would consider it a fatal lapse of judgment for Obama to have associated with Ayers?  

To this day Ayers has never refuted his Maoist beliefs and he has only weakly repented of his violent acts.   Just to tally up the list of Ayers’s extremism:

1) During the early ’70s, Ayers’s Weathermen cell attempted to burn a judge, his wife and three children alive with three gasoline bombs. A neighbor risked his life to prevent the largest bomb from detonating.  

2) Ayers personally designed a large anti-personal fragmentation bomb (a mass of explosives surrounded by nails) that he intended to detonate at a dance attended by U.S. Army personnel and their dates. Instead, the bomb exploded during its construction killing two Weathermen.

3) Ayers was/is a radical Maoist communist who sought/seeks the complete destruction of America. He sought to destroy liberal democracy, basic human rights and institute Stalinist/Maoist totalitarian rule.

4) In service to his goal (3) he sought the invasion of America by communist powers in the Soviet Union, Mao-ruled China, Castro-ruled Cuba and other communist states. (see 5 below)

5) He calmly contemplated the mass murder of 25 million Americans  [h/t Instapundit] who would refuse to convert to communism following the revolution.  

Honestly, what more could he possibly do to place himself beyond the pale? What more would he have to have done such that Obama supporters would consider it unacceptable that leftist Chicago embraced him? What more could he have done such that they would say, “Okay, Obama’s association with Ayers casts doubts on his fitness to be president?”  

What? What? What? What?

Why Socialism Will Not Die: Meat!

by

Despite all the death, misery and poverty that socialism has wreaked over the past century on all scales from Stalin to Detroit, one would think that a species capable of learning would figure out that socialism’s negatives eventually outweigh its positives. Worse, looking back across the history of humanity, we see   the core socialist idea of forced redistribution occurring again and again across culture after culture.  

Why do humans seem to have an in-built urge for socialism? Why won’t it die? I think socialism will not die because primitive humans lacked refrigerators.  

Read more

Obamian Acolytes vs Joe the Plumber

by

Ever since Joe Wurzelbacher had his interchange with Barack Obama, “progressive” websites and left-leaning media have been working to discredit Joe and harm him. Indeed, much of the media has shown more interest in investigating Joe than they ever showed in investigating Senator Obama or asking him tough questions. The Anchoress has a summary and round-up of links; see also Hot Air and the thoughtful post at Bookworm Room.

The message is pretty clear: If you dare to challenge a candidate beloved by the “progressive” movement, they will do everything they can to destroy you. You’d better be careful that all aspects of your life are squeaky clean and that your family can stand abuse: otherwise, just keep your mouth shut and don’t challenge those who know better than you. Mess with Obama, and you’ll never plumb in this town again.

John McCain:

Last weekend, Senator Obama showed up in Joe’s driveway to ask for his vote, and Joe asked Senator Obama a tough question. I’m glad he did; I think Senator Obama could use a few more tough questions.

The response from Senator Obama and his campaign yesterday was to attack Joe. People are digging through his personal life and he has TV crews camped out in front of his house. He didn’t ask for Senator Obama to come to his house. He wasn’t recruited or prompted by our campaign. He just asked a question. And Americans ought to be able to ask Senator Obama tough questions without being smeared and targeted with political attacks.

Neptunus Lex quotes the old Japanese saying: “The nail that sticks up gets hammered down.” Today’s “progressives” want very much to hammer down nails in America.

Here’s what I think is going on: Over the last 20 years, too many of America’s universities have become places in which conformity is at a premium and genuinely independent thought is discouraged–“islands of repression in a sea of freedom,” as someone put it. It was inevitable that the spririt of repression inculculated in the universities would begin to poison the larger society, and that is now happening.

Here’s an item which I think is related: It’s been reported that at a (rare, small) McCain rally in NYC, somebody grabbed a McCain sign and beat up the woman carrying it. Beat her up physically, not metaphorically.

We seem to have a substantial population of “progressives” who simply cannot abide the idea that anyone would disagree with their policies and/or principles, and these people are, increasingly, a primary constituency–maybe the primary constituency–of the Democratic party. What would happen to free speech in a country with a Democratic administration and a Democratic-controlled Congress and (after a lapse of time) a court system dominated by Democratic appointees? I don’t want to be alarmist, but I think there’s something to be concerned about here.

More on Joe the Plumber from Neo, who has video and sees a rather “sneering and condescending” attitude on Obama’s part. “Sneering” might be a little too strong, but “snide and condescending” would IMNSHO be appropriate.

Snideness and smears should not be a recipe for electoral success in this country.

(some of the above links via Instapundit)

Update: See If the jackboot fits from Iowahawk; also Villagers with Torches.

Obama’s 95% Illusion

by

One of the things that has bothered me, since at least the first presidential debate of this campaign, is Obama’s outright Orwellian use of the term “tax cut”. The Wall Street Journal now debunks the illusion:

It’s a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he’s also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of “tax cut.”

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase “tax credit.” Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

  • A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to “make work pay” that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.
  • A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.
  • A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).
  • A “savings” tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.
  • An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.
  • A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.
  • A “clean car” tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

Here’s the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be “refundable,” which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer — a federal check — from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this “welfare,” or in George McGovern’s 1972 campaign a “Demogrant.” Mr. Obama’s genius is to call it a tax cut.

The word “socialist” has, since the fall of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, lost its force as a political charge. People don’t feel threatened by “socialism” the way they did by “fascism”. That is simply too sanguine.

I don’t doubt that most voters will read through that list of what counts as “tax credits” and say to themselves, “I fit in there, I’m a good person, and by golly, in this economy, I can use all the help I can get.” But ask yourselves, “Where is this money coming from?”

I myself have been the recipient of unemployment benefits, and though I enjoyed not having to work for a while and getting money nonetheless, I always felt guilty about it. Not enough to get a job until the money flow ran dry; and that is the point. When there is “free” money, people become lazy. Further, the money Obama is promising to “95% of tax payers” is not “free”; it is gotten by increasing taxes on “the wealthy”.

Put in other words, this is nothing more than a blatant attempt to use government forcefully to redistribute wealth. It might not seem forceful right now because it does not happen at the tip of a gun, but rest assured that that is exactly what it is: coerced charity.

One reason why “socialism” has never gotten the same bad rap that “fascism” had is that people feel warm when they think about the purported intentions of socialists, which is to better the lives of the everyman. How callous must one seem who argues against providing for the everyman!

But that assumes that government is the only instrument by which we can take care of the less fortunate. To be sure, government often has incomparable scale, such that it can theoretically purchase for less due to greater bulk (but those who have supplied government contracts know that this is more the exception than the norm), and provide the logistical support to boot (although that didn’t seem to work real well during Katrina). Nevertheless, government, particularly a distant federal government of a nation that covers a third of a continent and a third of a billion people, has a tendency to lose touch. Further, to inure itself against lawsuits and charges of unfairness (in essence, to cover its own ass), it requires much more bureaucracy and red tape that eventually begins to undermine the gains from its scale. With such remove, is it any wonder that government often ends up helping opportunists and rejecting those in real need of help?

Contrast this with private charities. A private charity may not have the same scale as government (except perhaps for the Roman Catholic Church). However, private charities tend to be more involved in the lives of those getting their help; this is particularly true of religious charities, because of the motivation to win converts, whether through direct proselytization or through serving as values models. Further, private charities must always work to raise money, and a primary form of persuasive argument is demonstrating the good work that they have done.

Government, on the other hand, need never raise money, as it can levy taxes directly (with the implied support of “lawful use of force”), or indirectly by siphoning funds from a general account. In addition, all that is necessary in order for government to commit itself to such action is enough votes in the legislature, or the action of the executive, all of which requires, essentially, a simple majority of votes of the voting public–and yet, once 50%+1 of votes are cast in favor of action, government suddenly has access to the funds raised from 100% of the taxpaying public, not all of whom are eligible voters.

Charity is best which comes from the heart, and worthless which is imposed by government with the implied threat of violent force. In modern America, a compromise has been found by providing loopholes in the tax code that provide incentive to the rich to give. Although resultant giving may be less altruistic, nevertheless it gives “the rich” a choice, so that in some sense that charity still can be said to come from heart.

When Obama promises to pay for these “refundable tax credits”, he increases the number of those who end up paying no taxes, he rewards others who have no income, he stratifies income bands (thus reducing income and social mobility), and he does it all by punishing those who best have means to leave this country and its tax burdens. Look beyond the stated intentions, and you will see that such socialist economics will do nothing but impoverish this country. Can we really afford that in this economy? Is it any answer to claim that because Obama did not cause this state of the economy, he is therefore the antidote?

I think not.

(Cross-posted from Between Worlds)