Archive for the ‘Political Alignment’ Category

Making it viral from The Right Scoop:

From the description:

Louisiana Senator Elbert Guillory (R-Opelousas) explains why he recently switched from the Democrat Party to the Republican Party. He discusses the history of the Republican Party, founded as an Abolitionist Movement in 1854. Guillory talks about how the welfare state is only a mechanism for politicians to control the black community.

This isn’t quite as sinister as it could be, but it is indicative of a sinister mindset.

For example, back when Obama gave the infamous “you didn’t build that” speech, it was rightly interpreted as an attack on the individual.  To Obama and his supporters, they think they’re saying that individuals don’t create things alone.  They think they’re reciting Milton Friedman’s Lesson of the Pencil.  Instead, they’re denigrating the individual and elevating the collective.  Friedman’s lesson of the pencil is how collective action by individuals contributes to a wonderful free market where people work together and get along, sometimes even in spite of themselves – and all to their mutual benefit.  Obama’s lesson of “you didn’t build that” is how unilateral action by the collective creates a wonderful collective where people are made to get along, because the State and the Collective will it.

This newest Democrat ad statement, that we all belong to the government, is much the same.  What they think they’re wanting to say is that you, the individual, contribute to collective action.

In effect, that you, as the individual, contribute to government.

But what they’ve said is just as transparent as “you didn’t build that”.  They are collectivists.  Unilateral action by the collectivist state creates a world where all people are subservient to the will of the State and the Collective.

To draw another parallel, it’s how the left misunderstands the purpose of the military.  The left views the military as a controlled group of people to engage in social experiments on, they view the Moral Equivalent of War as an opportunity to mobilize people into action, to control “the masses”.  How the free individual sees the purpose of the military is that it’s a voluntary association, formed of individuals who want to and choose to contribute to their friends, families, to the multitude of individuals who are their fellow citizens.  They know that the means to that end are voluntary, and draconian, but that there’s an oath to a piece of paper, an ideal that enshrines individual liberty as the highest effort of the whole.  The individual is the government.

Not the other way around.

From The Weekly Standard, Andrew Ferguson has a fascinating piece entitled “The New Phrenology”:

We are entering the age of the psychopundit (we can thank the science writer Will Saletan for this excellent word). Thomas Edsall, for example, is a veteran political reporter widely admired by people who admire political reporters. He has become very excited by social science, as so many widely admired people have. Studies show—as a psychopundit would say—that Edsall is excited because social science has lately become a tool of Democrats who want to reassure themselves that Republicans are heartless and stupid. In embracing Science, the psychopundit believes he is moving from the spongy world of mere opinion to the firmer footing of fact. It is pleasing to him to discover that the two—his opinion and scientific fact—are identical.

That the “rich and powerful” are identical to conservatives and Republicans—Edsall’s assumption—is a hoary idea dear to many Democrats and essential to their self-image as the opponents of privilege. It persists even though many of the plushest and most powerful institutions of American life are in the hands of liberal Democrats: public and private universities, government bureaucra-cies, nonprofit foundations, movie studios, television networks, museums, newspapers and magazines, Silicon Valley .  .  . Among the fabled “1 percent,” according to Gallup, the number of self-identified Republicans is only slightly greater than the number of Democrats. As Christopher Caldwell has pointed out in these pages, political donations from 19 of the 20 richest ZIP codes in the United States go overwhelmingly to Democrats, by a ratio of four to one or more. Democrats are the party of what Democrats used to call the superrich. Only Democrats seem not to realize this.

A lack of self-awareness isn’t peculiar to liberals or Democrats, of course, but to judge by the behavior of psychopundits, we can safely say that they are clueless not only about themselves but about their political opposites. A young psychopundit called Chris Mooney has just published a book entitled The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science—and Reality, which seeks to explain the Republican “assault on reality.” He is a very earnest fellow, and an ambitious one. He glances over an array of conservative political beliefs and sets himself a goal: “to understand how these false claims (and rationalizations) could exist and persist in human minds.”

It’s a really good piece.  Many of these topics we’ve hit on here before, as leftists insist that conservatives=dumb, conservatives are stupid because they don’t trust “science” (“science” being liberal fabrications to justify their own dogma), and how conservatives and opposing points of view must be purged from the science discourse and treated as insane, etc., etc.

Andrew Ferguson at Weekly Standard continues to tear apart the leftist themes, carrying on from the last paragraph:

His list of false claims is instructive. Along with the usual hillbilly denials of evolution and global warming, they include these, to grab a quick sample: that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 will increase the deficit, cut Medicare benefits, and lead to the death panels that Sarah Palin hypothesized; that tax cuts increase revenue and that the president’s stimulus didn’t create jobs; that Congress banned incandescent light bulbs; and that the United States was founded as a “Christian nation.”

The list of errors is instructive because they aren’t properly considered errors, though the misattribution is in keeping with the modern ideologue’s custom of pretending that differences of opinion or interpretation are contests between truth and falsehood. It’s perfectly reasonable for conservatives to assume that offering health insurance to 43 million people will cost a lot of money, and thereby increase the deficit; and it’s perfectly reasonable to distrust notoriously mistaken budget forecasters who say it won’t. The act redirects vast sums away from Medicare, which should require cuts in service. Palin’s “death panel” was a bumper-sticker summary of a rational expectation—that the act will transfer the unavoidable rationing of health care from insurance companies, where most of it rests now, to the government, which will be forced to bureaucratically reshuffle the vast sums spent on end-of-life care. Mooney is right that Congress did not ban the incandescent light bulbs that most of us are used to; but it did ban their manufacture—a distinction without a difference. As for the Christian nation: The country was founded by Christians who nevertheless resolutely declined to create a Christian government. Mooney’s conflation of the American government with the American nation is an error that conservatives are less likely to make. Studies show.

It’s a very good piece.

Opinion writer Neal Gabler has this piece in the LA Times today that’s based on so many false premises it demands to be nearly fisked:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-gabler-morality-20110522,0,5036075.story

America The Stony-Hearted
By Neal Gabler

When the political history of the last 30 years is written, scholars will no doubt describe a rightward revolution that jolted this country out of its embrace of New Deal, big-government progressivism and into a love affair with small-government conservatism. But this change, significant as it is, has been undergirded by a less apparent but no less monumental revolution that has transformed the nation’s values, ideals and aspirations. Over those same 30 years, we have become a different country morally from what we were.

This is bunk.

The United States has always had a complex national moral system. On the one hand, there is the Puritan-inflected America of rugged individualism, hard work, self-reliance and personal responsibility in which you reap what you sow, God helps those who help themselves, and our highest obligation is to live righteously.

On the other hand, there is also an America of community, common cause, charity and collective responsibility. In this America, salvation comes from good works, compassion is among the greatest of virtues, and our highest obligation is to help others.

These two moralities managed to coexist — often within the same person — because they were not seen as mutually exclusive, especially in the 20th century. Nor was either the province of one political party or the other. Conservatives could subscribe to the ideals of generosity and compassion, just as liberals could subscribe to hard work and individual responsibility.

See, the problem is that rugged individualism, hard work, self-reliance, personal responsibility, and also community, common cause and charity exist without big-government progressivism.  Big government progressivism is a means to exercise force on the citizenry.  “Collective responsibility” is a concept that exists only in totalitarian states.  For those who don’t understand “collective responsibility”, see the following two morality plays of the collective:

The Jelly Donut

Blanket Party

That is how collective responsibility works.  The collective is responsible for the sins of one, and pays for those sins.  The collective also holds the one responsible.

When personal responsibility is paramount, the individual pays for the individual‘s mistakes.  Big difference.

But over the last 30 years or so, something has happened to reshape the country’s moral geography. Everyone knows about the rise of Moral Majority-style Christian evangelicals as a potent force in right-wing politics. It injected a certain aggressive moralism into our political discourse and led to campaigns against abortion rights, homosexual rights, sexual freedom and other issues perceived as and then framed as moral matters. As a result, our politics became “moralized”; they were transformed into a contest of one set of values pitted against another.

There was no reason for aggressive moralizing of a conservative/traditional nature of what was self-viewed as a moral nation before then.  “Abortion rights” didn’t exist before 1973 – though it was favored by progressives who sought to exterminate the black race.  Gays had equal protection under the law, regardless of how biased individuals may have mistreated and abused individual gay people, and how reprehensible bigots may have ignored that gays are also created equal.  Gay rights, unfortunately, is not about acknowledging gay people as people, but is about gay priviledges, and is usually justified under the “pendulum swings one way, then the other” absurdity – equal doesn’t mean some are more equal, whether to make things “fair” or not.  “Sexual freedom” wasn’t about freedom, it was about upsetting tradition.  The pill wouldn’t have caused the same sexual revolution by itself – advocates for free love and hedonism were who was behind “sexual freedom”.  For some also, sex sells, and consequence-reduced sex sells more – especially when driven to break down traditional morality.  Oh, and there were people who did agitate and try to tear down the nation as well (there are plenty more, I just link to some usual suspects here).  And some who were professionals did the same:

That moral upheaval led to the rise of the Moral Majority-style evangelicals.  Well, that and TV allowing evangelists to spread their message and expand their pool of donations.

This was hardly the first time politics was overtaken by morality. One has only to think of abolition and Prohibition. The difference this time was that as politics were being moralized and polarized, our morals were also being politicized and polarized. The two moral systems that had so long coexisted suddenly became mutually exclusive, oppositional and finally inseparable from the two regnant political ideologies.

Abolition was the continuation of original founding principles.  All men are created equal, not all white male landowner upper-class English-blooded men (and men here means mankind).  The 3/5ths Compromise was made specifically to limit the power of slave states, while still allowing the new nation to form – and eventually phase out slavery entirely.  Prohibition was introduced by a moralizing big-government progressives.  Small government doesn’t want to interfere with one’s life.

There were never two moral systems.  There was one – that of classical liberalism.  It was a rejection of monarchy, a rejection of divine right of kings, and the prime acknowledgement that all men are created equal.  Classical liberalism (conservatism, also libertarianism) comes from ideas like John Locke asserting that a just government exists at the consent of the governed, not as a tool for a monarch or dictator to rule over the land.  Progressives used to call themselves progressives  – they stole the word liberal from the classic liberals, who are now called conservatives – who are trying to conserve classic liberalism (though some called conservatives are traditionalists of their own stripes).  Reading older books like Hayek’s Road To Serfdom results in confusion when you see liberal=free markets and liberal =/= central planning and big government progressivism.

One can see this division in something as simple as the denigration of the term “liberal,” the “L” word, with its attendant idea that to be compassionate, caring and tolerant — virtues that had been celebrated, if only via lip service, by most Americans — is really to be mush-minded, weak and, more concretely, willing to give taxpayer largesse to the undeserving and lazy.

That’s because the Modern Liberal is mush-minded, weak, and steals from productive citizens at the point of government’s gun to give to the undeserving and lazy, all the while congratulating themselves for embracing compassion, care, and tolerance – none of which are virtues they believe in.  The do believe in it, of course, when they’re pandering to those they give other people’s money to, and when they’re accusing those they steal from of being heartless.

It is easy to miss how significant a change this is. It transforms compassion, a bulwark in practically any moral system, into a negative force that undermines the good of individual initiative. Indeed, conservative ideologue Marvin Olasky wrote a book to this effect, pungently titled “The Tragedy of American Compassion,” in which he called for the privatization of all charitable efforts. It rapidly became a conservative touchstone.

Compassion isn’t a bulwark in any moral system of government.  If a government rules by compassion, it rules by emotion, which leads to “who is the greater victim?” and “how do we force someone to give to that victim?”  This leads to society based on the whim of whomever holds power.  Also, privatized charitable efforts result in people who give freely, so those who give aren’t harmed, and those who get realize that they are existing on the largesse of those who give – and thus may have some pride in wanting to improve their own status.  The leftist/modern liberal is interested in the recipient maintaining his victim status and blames the well-to-do, or even just the slightly-better-off – thus exalting the caregiver leftist and justifying the leftist stealing from the productive citizens’ childrens’ mouths.

By the same token, liberals have come to see the emphasis on the individual and self-reliance as a form of civic irresponsibility and selfishness — a way to justify rogue economic behavior and enrichment at the expense of the community. It was, incidentally, a charge adherents of the novelist Ayn Rand gladly invited because they believe selfishness is a tough, exalted form of morality. Thus were the moral sides drawn: soft-headed versus tough-minded, big-hearted versus stony-hearted.

That’s because the modern leftist rejects any individuality as a rejection of the collective.  Rand’s extreme version of selfishness as a virtue is functional, if cold.  But the coldly calculating individual who thinks of nothing but self-interest will still have self-interest in maintaining good relations with the rest of humanity, and must acknowledge that what John Donne said is true: “Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind.”  Howard Roark can’t build his buildings without Mike Donnigan (who I’d argue is almost the more important character – as he is realistic, rather than a character who exists as an ideal).

Big-hearted versus stony-hearted is another absurdity.

Big-hearted liberals inflate grades for students based on feelings, and leave the students at a disadvantage in the real world.  Big-hearted liberals give handouts to people who need to develop self-sufficiency.  Big-hearted liberals are terminal enablers of drug addicts, permanent welfare families, child-rapists, and baby-killers.  Stony-hearted conservatives reject making people dependent, and reject those who aid criminals, and reject the wholesale termination of the young.

Perhaps it is as simple a matter as self-interest always overpowering communal interest when there isn’t some countervailing force like religion or civic shame to contain it, but by seeking to conflate morality and politics and by discrediting such things as civil rights law, healthcare reform and financial regulation — all fueled by a sense of fairness and compassion — the right has succeeded in making the moral verities of the Protestant ethic seem more moral than the verities of the Social Gospel. In effect, morality is now the preserve of the right.

Communal interest doesn’t exist.  That is the interest of the planner.  A community is made up of individuals.  When an individual doesn’t find their interest represented by the “community” goals, why should they support it?  Communal interest exists for the recruits who don’t want to push for Pyle’s Jelly Donut – and the reason they push is because of GySgt Hartman’s planner tyranny that subjects every individual to his violent authority.

The Social Gospel was a scam.  It is basically William James’s “The Moral Equivalent of War” – a way to justify subjecting the individual to the collective for The Greater Good.  Of course, The Greater Good is decided by the planners and the community and more importantly, by those who control government and can use its force on the citizenry.  James hates war, but loves the idea of moving people with the same speed and intensity – of forcing them to be martial at home.  The reason the military is not a free society is because its function is to preserve a free society.  An individual who values other individuals’ freedom enough to willingly fight for it does so at the temporary expense of his own freedom – but make no mistake – he fights for his own freedom as well.

Scarcely a generation ago, you wouldn’t have found many conservatives who would have sneered at compassion or tolerance or fundamental fairness, even if they disagreed with liberals on how these concepts might operate in the real world. Today, open contempt for these values is conservative boilerplate for Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, and even for the Republican Party itself, whose idea of cutting government is always cutting programs that help the weakest and least fortunate Americans and whose idea of compassion is caring about the tax burden of the wealthiest Americans.

“Compassion” to a leftist means a social justice program designed to take from one and give to another.  “Tolerance” to a leftist means giving special priviledges to one group in order to “even out the playing field”.  “Fundamental fairness” means equality of results and stifling equality of opportunity.

That open contempt for Glenn Beck ignores what he’s done for charity, and promoting flash mobs to “demonstrate goodness”.  Heck, Limbaugh raised $2.1 million for charity by auctioning off a letter that was critical of him.  Hannity, well… he openly says he raises money for charity, but really doesn’t provide much.

Cutting programs that “help” the weakest are cutting the programs that make them dependent.  Cutting taxes for everyone means the poor have more wealth for themselves that they’ve earned, and the rich have more money to hire more poor, who then can become more wealthy.  Cutting government reduces the oppressive tax on everyone’s back, but it does reduce the power of the big government progressive planner.

But it is to say that this moral reconfiguration has not only changed our politics and our perception of morality; it has changed us. If compassion is seen as softness, tolerance as a kind of promiscuity, community as a leech on individuals and fairness as another word for scheming, we are a harder nation than we used to be, and arguably a less moral one as well. In undergoing a revolution for the nation’s soul, we may have found ourselves losing it.

The left changed compassion to enabling weakness.  The left’s tolerance is to support things that offend others and tell others they must embrace it – and misunderstands what tolerance means.  Community is individuals.   Community in the leftist mindset is a society of crabs in the bucket, lorded over by the leftist, who decides just how well off the community should be.  Is it “fair” that one is better than another, whether due to circumstance, luck, or effort?  The leftist-progressive says no.

>xkcd’s Nolan Chart

Posted: March 6, 2011 by ShortTimer in Humor, Political Alignment

>Pretty much on the mark with this one:
http://xkcd.com/868/

We here at The Patriot Perspective agree (from back in the days when I was even more heavily influenced by the Jawa Report’s style of finishing off a post*):
http://thepatriotperspective.blogspot.com/2009/09/worlds-smallest-political-alignment.html

xkcd is cool, no matter what the haters on any blagoblogs** say. It’s just cool the same way that Rush and D&D are cool.

But whatever. I’m a Far Side guy myself.

Photobucket

They’re going to rescue Willzyx and Tom Cruise.

* For a recent example from Jawa Report. They do look for terrorists and terrorist propagandists to disrupt online, often by reporting videos online or getting servers to stop hosting terrorist sympathizer websites. Admirable work. They also like hot chicks, a staple of the internet – and know there’s a reason they’re morale boosters. I also like big morale boosters. Most guys do.

**Or blogoblag. But I wrote blagoblog without looking up that comic first… so I’m sticking to it. Blagoblog.

>Bill Whittle’s Part V of the explanation of Tea Party/conservative beliefs:

We see natural law revisited here. If it’s yours, it’s yours – and your property is your right – and your right to defend. No legitimate government can take away the right to property. Indeed, original phrase used by the founders was “life, liberty and pursuit of property“. If it’s yours, it’s yours – be it your home, your house, your car, your labor, your wealth or your body.

Photo by Oleg Volk.

Just today, I stumbled across this essay: Violence Is Golden. It’s a very direct assessment of how society works, and how violence works. It’s a more elaborate version of Robert Heinlein’s explanation in Starship Troopers via Sgt Zim of the application of force.

Photo by Oleg Volk.

It’s something that, like Whittle says, most conservative/Tea Party/traditionalist types instinctively understand. It’s not something that needs to be elaborated on to be understood – but it’s worth it to examine beliefs anyway. For most folks, Oleg Volk’s posters are simply direct, visual statements of common sense. Through examining these beliefs, it makes it easier to convey them to those who don’t understand – those who fear firearms and place their blind trust unwisely in the monopoly of force that the state controls.

Again, by Oleg Volk.

But for people who live in a bubble, it is not easy to understand. For rich city people who believe that the police are there in an instant, perhaps banning guns makes sense. They don’t have to experience violence in their lives. They are never threatened by crime, animals, nor do they feel the boot of oppressive government – the police are invariably subservient, because the super-rich are connected to the county/city/state/federal government.

For the not-super-rich city dweller, the modest suburbanite, or the rural resident of whatever means, physical security is a real concern – even against tyrannical government.

For people who’ve been victimized on a massive scale – they know what gun control really means firsthand. It isn’t a myth, it isn’t a “can’t happen here”, and no amount of “we live in a good neighborhood” or “we have laws against that” means a damn thing. They know that violence exists – sometimes in the form of common thugs, but more often in the form of tyranny.

Volk’s work again.

And that line of defense is just part of beauty of the Second Amendment. The Founders knew a way to prevent tyranny, oppression, and crime (which is just tyranny or oppression on the personal scale). And they knew that the more of it we exercise, the fewer rights we have trampled – the freer we are, and the safer we are. The greater that defense, the greater the deterrence against oppressors.

No freeman should ever be disbarred
the use of arms.

- Thomas Jefferson

An armed society is a polite society.

- Robert Heinlein

For those unconvinced, I suggest exploring Oleg Volk’s site: A Human Right. It’s also a good site to explore your own opinions on the Second Amendment, as well as something to show to others who may not have the frame of reference to understand.

Also, since it’s fun and informative and persuasive, check out Penn & Teller skewering Gun Control.

She can resist tyranny, oppression, and crime. Sunburn, not so much.

And Oleg Volk has an awesome job.

>Bill Whittle’s Part 2 of the explanation of conservative/Tea Party beliefs:

A few minutes to gain valuable insight into the why. It may be a “why” that many of us already intuitively know, but to examine one’s own beliefs is always worthwhile.

Thomas Sowell offers this quote about traditions from his book “The Vision of the Anointed”:
“For the anointed, traditions are likely to be seen as the dead hand of the past, relics of a less enlightened age, and not as the distilled experience of millions who faced similar human vicissitudes before.”

Sowell’s statement, in conjunction with Whittle’s explanations, is much of the reason why social and fiscal conservatism so often find themselves represented by the same individuals. The basis for much of the thinking – that individual experiences have given people decades, centuries, or millenia of good choices – remains the same, and to disregard either social conservatism (traditionalism) or fiscal conservatism without good cause, or because of elitist mandate, is foolish. It assumes that the financial or social engineer (whether to stricter or looser policies of society or finance) alone has a better idea – and the elitist engineer must therefore direct society.

The non-elitist who believes they have a better way puts forth his new ideas as an invention, which is adopted by society if it’s good, and ignored or rejected by society if it is not.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. And if someone thinks they can do better – they can prove it themselves.

>Part 1 of Bill Whittle’s 7-part breakdown of modern conservatism and the fundamental beliefs of the Tea Party.

>

Saw this one over at Theo Spark’s blog, which is not always 100% SFW, but has a lot of good news & politic info. And pinup girls.

>http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html

I’ve taken this quiz before, but now having seen the effects of the liberal fascist/statist mode of govt, it appears I’ve gotten way more hardcore in support of liberty.


My only non-100% libertarian question is one that basically consists of “how the hell you gonna do it?”

There is a problem with the quiz and its results. Statist and liberal are the same thing, as the fundamental basis of modern liberalism is that they have no beliefs beyond pandering to emotion.

Jonah Goldberg rather eloquently illustrates this by pointing out that the basis of modern liberalism begins in the 19-teens with Woodrow Wilson and his cadre, who all believed they knew what was best. HG Wells coined the term “Liberal Fascism” to describe the progressives of the era – and meant it in glowing terms. The left was enamored with fascism and the trappings of ultimate power and still is – as evidenced by the bow to the Saudi king, the hug with Hugo Chavez, etc.

Thus, the modern liberal is a statist, and vice versa, though he’ll call himself a progressive or whatever lie he needs to in order to get by. Van Jones was a communist who proclaimed himself a liberal and progressive – but all are the same thing – people who crave power over others and are those who should NEVER have it.

The liberalism of the founding fathers was libertarianism coupled with some degrees of conservatism based on traditional Christian values. It was liberal in opposition to monarchy and despotism – it was revolutionary in contrast to that. It was vehemently not the “revolutionary” of tyrannical dictators like Hugo Chavez or the mass murdering coward Che Guevara or of even greater mass murderer Lenin. That’s simply one more tyrannical despot replacing a weaker government.

Nor does any “liberal” policy in the quiz follow true liberal principles – which are libertarian principles, or conservative principles – as conservatives are seeking to CONSERVE the liberties and virtues derived from them that they see as most beneficial to the survival of the American people.

It’s flawed on the whole statist dictatorial side. No true liberal should be taking from one group to give to another, as welfare does. That’s theft – it starts with money and ends with prima nocta.

Nor does a traditional conservative – based on conserving the principles that made the country great – demand that government interfere in people’s home lives.

I suppose the conclusion is that, given liberal-statists identical status and thought, and the opinions of an American conservative versus an American traditionalist (who doesn’t adhere to the Constitution so much as their cultural opinions – which may not be a bad thing for culture, but perhaps shouldn’t interfere in government and laws) – the test is invalid.

Diatribe over – but consider it no matter your result. Classic liberalism, American conservatism, or just libertarianism, call it what you will – it all adds up to this:

And this:


Liberty looks pretty damn good to me.