Article Archives by Subject: Progressivism
Permalink
Ready. Aim. Fire! |
Subject: Does The Left Have An Agenda? Oh Yeah, You
Betcha!
Throughout my life I have listened to the musings of people speculating
on the actual intentions of those who align themselves with the
philosophy of the progressive left. Many good-hearted people who
always search to find only the best in others would look at the
disastrous results being achieved by various wealth redistribution
schemes, corporate bailouts, regulatory boondoggles, failed educational
initiatives and programs based upon moral relativism, egalitarianism
and altruism, and offer one excuse after another in an attempt to
justify that, in spite of all the harmful consequences, the aim of
these people was nevertheless still noble and well-meant. But
was it?
That's right. Our reliance upon constitutional principles is a neurotic obsession, and those principles are not just wrong according to this constitutional scholar — but are morally corrupt and therefore evil! Well, let's give Mr. Seidman credit for finally coming out and explicitly stating this belief that so many have struggled to conceal for so long. Seidman is the left's answer to John Galt. He stands up on the pages of the New York Times and proudly proclaims, "Get Out Of My Way!" — not to the looters and moochers — but to the last remnant of protection that this country has to offer in service of the rights of individuals wishing to exist on their own terms and live for their own sake. Who is he gunning for? Me ... and for you! If an objective guideline such as the Constitution is to be abandoned as a constraint upon unlimited government power, and the concept of inherent unalienable rights is to be abolished, then what will replace them?
Seidman is privy to the answers, which appear to be nothing more than a grab-bag of personal wish, whim and mystical revelation. For some unstated reason we should have respect for certain amendments (I guess he'll know them when he sees them) while abandoning others that are self-evidently undeserving. Some aspects of the Constitution represent great tradition or are too much a bother to change, while the remainder should be tossed out with the baby and the bath water. Seidman will let us know which is which. And then there's "something to be said" (of course, the actual reasoning is better left unsaid) for maintaining an unrestrained totalitarian body with the power to impose it's arbitrary will upon the remainder of us. Who could argue with any of this? I mean, where exactly would you start? What makes it possible for muddled linguistic regurgitations like these to pass for "thought," which then gets prominently displayed upon the pages of the New York Times? The answer is our postmodern educational system that has stunted the minds of the preceding and current generations, rendering so many incapable of any sort of rational analysis. As an example, consider this little gem:
Why is constitutional language so broad? Because in the postmodern world, words are no longer concepts with definitions and meaning, but merely "sounds" hinting at underlying platonic "feelings" which are all equally valid and must therefore be "embraced" through "good-faith" efforts. And what's wrong with rigid, objective principles as embodied in our Constitution? For the postmodernist, these are the "tools" of oppression which force one to abandon their subjective "moral and political judgements." In this context, "judgements" means arbitrary assertions requiring no more justification than someone screaming, "this is what I want and demand!" For additional information on how postmodern philosophy is infecting our educational system, I highly recommend a wonderful series of videos presentations by Professor Stephen Hicks, which form a part of his Philosophy of Education course. Seidman concludes:
So the entire history of Enlightenment thought which developed throughout the 17th and 18th Centuries, and its impact that upon Western civilization, leading to the recognition of the concept of individual rights, limited government, the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, and the creation of the U.S. Constitution, is nowhere to be found. This history is reduced to a floundering heritage of "mature and tolerant debate" (whatever that is?) held in "bondage" by rigid constitutional ... what? Principle? No, nothing so grand — just archaic and idiosyncratic utterances. The "freedom" that Mr. Seidman seeks, isn't the political freedom for which our forefathers fought. No, what he strives for is the unobtainable freedom from reality that, time and again, history has shown leaves only a trail of human death and destruction in its failed wake.
Here we find a classic case of our opening thesis. Do we make
excuses and allowances for Louis Michael Seidman's apparent lack of
knowledge regarding western history and the meaning and purpose of the
Constitution which he has been teaching for nearly 40 years, giving
him the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't actually understand the
meaning of what he preaches — or do we hold him fully accountable
for his ideas and the consequences that they portend? We'll come back
to that.
Like Seidman above, Mr. Kaul is no friend of our Constitution. In his article concerning the Sandy Hook shooting, he declares that, "The thing missing from the debate so far is anger." Well, anger is certainly something that Kaul has in ample supply! In just a few short paragraphs, he calls for:
When it comes to feelings of anger, it is always time for the Constitution to be sweep aside, allowing those emotions to flower into the bloodlust that is the hallmark of the progressive left. And after all, there's simply nothing quite as eloquent as a good lynching to firmly make your point.
Just like the New York Times, the Des Moines Register considered
this suitable material to promote as part of the national discussion
on violence. However, considering the rhetoric above, it gives one
pause to wonder if the elimination of violence is actually a goal of
the left after all?
The agenda is simple, and it explains every position taken by the progressives: That which promotes individual initiative and personal choice is the bad which must be destroyed, while that which constrains individuals in any manner is the good. As always, it's the age old battle between individualism and collectivism, and it does no good to make allowances and excuses for those out to chain and control us. They know exactly what they are doing. Let's not allow them to hide from the consequences of their own sorry truth one moment longer.
External links to reprints of this article: |
|
Permalink
|
Subject: The Straw
Back on September 17th, during his weekly radio address, President Obama proclaimed that Americans must finally start paying their "fair share" in order to reduce the federal deficit. Of course this is all just verbal misdirection used to hide the fact that what he is actually talking about is merely another run at one of the most important goals of his administration — wealth redistribution — from those who have earned it to those that covet it, with the ruling government class taking their usual handling fee in the process. And who is it that is not paying their fair share? Of course it is certainly not the virtuous bottom 50% of wage-earners who contribute little to nothing in income and payroll tax. (The bottom 47% pay no income tax at all, and that is precisely what makes them virtuous!) No, according to Obama, it's the greedy, cheating, wealthy households and businesses — the now famous 1% — that have been holding out on the rest of us, and justice demands that they must finally be forced to pay up. And how are the top 1% fleecing us? By currently carrying only 40% of the total income and payroll tax burden (up from 18% in 1980). And if you increase that pool to the top 1.5% of households, representing the magic $250,000 income number, then that group pays roughly half the total. (For more details, see this article.) So one is forced to ask, in Obama's mind just what level of tax burden does he deem to be fair to impose upon that small minority of Americans? Is it sixty percent? Seventy percent? More? He never tells us, because there is no hard and fast answer. For Obama, merely earning more than someone else is all the evidence required to condemn that person and justify the use of government force to confiscate their ill gotten "surplus." Billionaire businessman Warren Buffett seems to agree with Obama's egalitarian philosophy, and famously issued his call to "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich", demanding that the government raise taxes on him and other wealthy people. Taking up the cause, a group of twenty-four "Patriotic Millionaires" descended upon the Capitol to demand that Congress raise taxes on the wealthy in order to deal with the serious federal budget deficits and growing national debt. And just how serious were they? When confronted by reporter Michelle Fields of The Daily Caller (video below) and offered the opportunity to use their great wealth to make a voluntary debt reduction contribution to the Treasury Department, they all refused. And neither can I recall Buffett volunteering some or all of his fortune towards that end. It does make one wonder whether these patriots are truly concerned about the debt. Or instead, is it possible that their actual motives are not quite so altruistic, having more to do with seeing the chains restricting the freedom and property rights of others pulled ever tighter, even if it ends up impacting them as well?
"Patriotic Millionaires?" In 1957, the author and philosopher Ayn Rand published the novel Atlas Shrugged, depicting the consequences that inevitably result from government intervention in the realm of economics. As that story unfolds, we see the government exerting more and more control over business activities. However, instead of achieving the promised improvement, we observe conditions continuing to deteriorate at an ever accelerating pace. As government policies tie the hands of competent business leaders, making it increasingly difficult for them to act on their independent judgment and in service of their own goals, we do not find them running to the politicians and begging to be altruistically sacrificed on the pyre of subjugation as we witnessed with our patriotic millionaires. No. Possessing far too much integrity to abase themselves in that way, these men and women decide to go on strike by simply disappearing and leaving the problems of managing economic production to those who condemn them for their ability to successfully do so. Over the past few years more and more people have been shocked to see in how many ways Atlas Shrugged has proved to be prophetic in anticipating the specifics actions and consequences that have resulted from bad political actions driven by an underlying evil philosophy. And the idea that men of ability, when pressed too far would choose to strike, is one literary device that has dramatically presaged today's reality. As Rand put it in a conversation between her characters, Francisco d'Anconia and Hank Rearden:
Here are some examples of real-life strikers in action: Stealing from the rich isn't an idea original to Obama; people have been trying it ever since Ogg caught his first wild boar and Yuup decided that he would like his "fair share" of that. But hiring a group of thugs, called "politicians", and getting them to do all the hard work for you was certainly a civilizing advancement! In 2008, the Maryland "Yuups" identified their "Oggs", and they were called millionaires. Here's what happened, as reported in the Wall Street Journal:
Push too hard on your victims, and just like Keyser Söze, "Poof, they're gone!" On occasion, a few of these individuals will make public the reasons for their departure, similar to the radio address delivered by John Galt towards the end of Atlas Shrugged. Here are excerpts from two such letters:
The same story has played out over and over again in New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Illinois and elsewhere. And it's not just wealthy individuals, but entire businesses which also look to relocate when the burden becomes too great. As reported in CNN Money:
Or another example from the Wall Street Journal:
Contrary to what progressive state politicians repeatedly try to tell themselves, so long as alternatives are available, intelligent individuals and businesses will not merely sit back and "take it", but will continue to pursue what is in their best interest. When one state acts abusively, there are 49 other possibilities to explore in order to locate a healthier environment. However, when the federal government gets involved in imposing its punitive taxes and regulation across the entire country, then options become much more limited, difficult and costly. For certain large scale industries and very wealthy individuals, there may be the possibility of moving business or investments offshore. But in many other cases, the problems created by political intervention simply outweight all of the alternatives. The tipping point is finally reached, and the most sensible path is to simply call it quits — a phenomenon that has been accelerating in recent years and has come to be known as "Going Galt". In the Tri-City Herald we here the story of Bob Bertsch:
On David McElroy's Blog, he recounts the words of Alabama coal mine operator Ronnie Bryant who, after having listened to two hours of business-bashing by the public, environmentalists and politicians, had this to say:
Zero Hedge posted the letter that hedge fund manager Ann Barnhardt sent to clients, announcing the closure of her business. Excerpts follow:
The Hazleton, PA Standard Speaker reports that Dr. Frank C. Polidora, an orthopedic surgeon, quits:
The Wall Street Journal discusses Thomas Depping's decision to close Main Street Bank:
Jerry Della Femina tells his story in the East Hampton Independent:
For every newsworthy story of an individual or business that decides to throw in the towel, there are untold others that go unreported. Many businesses — and sometimes entire industries — are destroyed by a burden of taxes and regulations that simply cannot be borne in a market-driven economy. This much is at least clear to some. But what gets little discussion is the psychological toll that all of this government intervention takes. What few seem to understand is that for the small minority who are prepared to accept full responsibility for themselves — living by their own thought, judgment, goals and actions — each unreasonable tax is not merely a burden, but is seen to be a gross injustice; every new piece of legislation is another set of circus hoops through which one is forced to jump; regulations are a leash, and every regulator a self-appointed master with a whip in hand. For the independent man or woman, government intervention attempts to reduce them from their stature as fully human, to some form of caged beast under the constant control of others. Government intervention is the supreme demotivator! It hammers away at passion. It undermines creativity. It erodes drive and the will to succeed. It destroys the joy found in action and the pride realized through success. To put it simply, it drains the fun out of life. In an attempt to place a monetary price tag on our economic losses, enormous energy is invested by bureaucrats, analysts, pundits and the media in calculating debt ratios, unemployment levels, energy costs, borrowing fluidity, and any number of other metrics. All the while the real price being paid — the total loss of human motive willpower — dwarfs all of those calculations, but goes unacknowledged. Go back and reread the stories above and look for what they all have in common. These once productive individuals, all of them wealth and job creators, have pulled the plug on their endeavors. And why? Because, thanks to government intervention, they can no longer find the joy that their work once brought them. The rewards of hard work have been lowered while the costs have increased, to a point where further effort is no longer justified — at which point, it's time to shrug. If you see the issue in this light, then you can understand why, when Ayn Rand spoke of the struggle for our future, she did not describe it principally in economic or political terms, but instead framed it as something much more important: a moral battle — a fight for the true nature and soul of mankind. At its most fundamental level, each person must strive for their passion — their joy — their happiness. And they must oppose anything that stands in the path of those pursuits. Today, the greatest obstacle standing in our way is a government that has escaped its constitutional straitjacket and become an oppressive monster, injecting itself into every crevice of our lives. If we are to move forward along a path to where we once again can assert ourselves as individuals, in full control over our own destines, then it is imperative that each political action we take be directed squarely at that goal. Half-hearted stop-gap measures will not solve this problem, and are in fact, partly responsible for what led us to this moment. It is time to apply the ultimate litmus test to every statement uttered by every person aspiring for political office: Does this candidate articulate a consistent set of well defined policies that support my personal independence? If he accomplishes the things he is proposing, will this maximize the opportunity to pursue my life passionately, allowing me to set my own goals in service of my own definition of happiness? I suggest that if you cannot respond with an unreserved "Yes!", then this is not a candidate worthy of your support. Reject him or her and seek out another who has earned the right to represent you by demonstrating that they fully understand and respect the right to your personal independence. Never compromise when extending your political support, for doing so is simply an indirect way of compromising on your own life, your values, and ultimately your joy. Always consider just what you demand of yourself when pursuing your goals, and then be sure to never settle for anything less from those in whom you are prepared to vest with political power as your representative. This is the only strategy that has any long range hope of correcting our current situation. Anything less is a recipe for our continued cultural descent.
|
|
Permalink |
Subject: Republicans/Democrats: Who Can Tell the Difference?
Just as during the last presidential campaign, there was no fundamental difference between John McCain and Barack Obama in their calls for national service, we now have former president George H.W. Bush joining with President Obama on October 16, 2009 for A Presidential Forum on Service. From their joint announcement:
Both political parties are morally bankrupt. Neither offers an alternative which respects and defends your most basic individual right — the right to your own life. This is very possibly the most important issue that we currently face, because the implications are more fundamental to the preservations of our liberty. The Obama administration is committed to instituting mandatory national service for all citizens. The United We Serve operation at serve.gov is just a prelude to the next step, which if enacted, will mean that the government will have established a claim of ownership over the lives of every US citizen. If you grant them the right to impose control over three months of your life, then you have no grounds for opposing a later increase to six months, two years, or a lifetime of service to the state. You life is either yours to do with as you choose, or it isn't. There is no middle ground. It is important that this push be halted in its tracks. Please do everything you can to oppose this insidious drive for conscription. |
