The ABC's Of Liberalism

The term “Liberal” and “Liberalism” is being bandied about in so many contexts that its actual meaning seems to becoming lost. The fact is that most people today – at least Americans are “liberal” the problem lies not in the philosophy of liberalism but in its interpretation and implementation. Liberalism is actually a philosophy that emphasizes individualism, equality, and freedom – things which I think the typical American stands for and believes in. The problem starts almost at the outset because as a “theory” liberalism describes how things ought to be rather than how they actually are. In practice the liberal wants a government that perfectly embodies the three basic points of liberal philosophy, rather than accepting the pragmatic reality of the government we have.

Liberals and non-liberals alike want government to secure the rights of individuals the problem comes in the implementation of that goal. Both want every individual to be treated equally but for some that equality is equality under the law but for others that kind equality is not enough because equality cannot be had if some are richer than others. For these people the clear responsibility of government is to redistribute the wealth so that equality among all citizens can be achieved. While some people believe in the basic right to individual ownership of property others think the government has the responsibility to secure goods for every citizen, even at the expense of others and their property rights. This leads to the progressive income tax, housing subsides, affirmative action, income tax refunds to those who pay no income tax, and more recently the seizure of private property for developers to build malls and buildings for the “good of all”.

While most Americans would say they believe in freedom, in practice they do not. In fact the typical American believes in limited freedom and the number of limitations on our freedom increases daily. In fact this may actually best illustrate how liberalism in practice has so deviated from liberalism as a philosophy. Some would think that “freedom of speech” has been expanded beyond what was intended by the founding fathers with the acceptance by the Supreme Court of pornography, profanity, and the desecration of Christian symbols. But Christian theology and symbols are banned from schools and public buildings while Islamic and other religious symbols and theology are not. Huckleberry Finn cannot be taught in schools because the word “nigger” is used. The government has banned smoking which is a direct infringement of individual rights – justified by liberals on the basis of “the common good”. Car seats and seat belts are mandatory and indeed they may be very useful but the reality is that compulsion to buy them and use them is a direct abridgement by government on individual rights. So while most Americans believe in the liberal philosophy the implementation has strayed so far afield as to border on fascism.

This idea that the government has an obligation to provide for the individual was the motivation behind Karl Marx and his communist philosophy. Even though communism has caused more harm than good and has cost millions of lives, the basic belief that government must provide for the individual lives on. It lives on with the universal healthcare bill before congress today. It lives on in the “tax the rich” ideas prevailing in congress today. It lives on as the individual right not to be offended. The government now protects the rights of minorities at the expense of the majority when the whole purpose of the American Republic was government by the majority. We have come along way from that ideal. What started as a government for the people has morphed into a people subordinate to the government whose objective is to provide first and foremost for the individual at the expense of the majority.

The Rich and the Poor

Once again we hear the cries to tax the rich, to make the greedy corporations share their profits, that the number of people living in poverty is criminal and that the government should do something to alleviate the suffering of the poor. These cries to help the poor are delivered with heartfelt emotion and with such passion that it appears that the poor among us have just been discovered. These cries to help the poor take many forms and among them we see concerts held to raise money to save the family farm. We see charitable organizations like Habitat for Humanity building homes for the poor. There are various government programs already in place to help the poor and indigent, there even re-training programs offered by both private industry and the government, yet year after year we hear these cries to help the poor and more needs to be done. Perhaps it is time to step back and conduct a critical review of the situation, but first perhaps a little historical perspective is in order.

From 4000 BC until 1800 AD the larger portion of the population was devoted to agriculture with a small proportion of the population occupying themselves with trades, government, and the military. Effectively the population was divided into the rich and the poor with the greatest majority being the poor. The stark reality is that farming has always been a subsistence living and only the largest farms could generate enough income to allow for expansion, which enlarged the size of the farm and the income. The large farms evolved into estates and the children climbed the ladder of success reaching senior government posts and aristocratic status, the smaller family farms remained as they were and yielded a subsistence living. Occasionally the sons of these subsistence farmers were join the military and rise through the ranks to positions of great power. Obviously it can be concluded that the family farm provides for a solid family structure and solid foundation for nation states, it does not lend itself to wealth generation or career opportunities for the children. It can further be concluded that society naturally separates itself into the rich and the poor or the haves and have-nots. But if some of the have-nots are able to rise just as some of the haves fall into poverty then the people in these categories are not forever fixed there like the Indian caste system, then it can be concluded that a person’s situation in life to some extent is self-determined.

But if the poor have always existed and in all likelihood will continue to exist, why hasn’t someone or some government solved the problem? Well there have been numerous attempts to solve the problem of poverty. The Gracchi in Rome observed that there was a large number of unemployed in Rome who were subsisting on the state while slaves were tending the fields. Their attempts to reduce the number of slaves tending the crops in an effort to provide more employment to the unemployed in the city resulted in the mob killing them. Since that time there have been numerous efforts to reduce poverty and unemployment through various redistribution programs. The French Revolution was an attempt to establish an egalitarian society, which failed and gave rise to Napoleon. Then there was the Russian Revolution and the rise of Marxism which also failed, although there continue to be many determined Marxists who insist that the failure of Communism was not in the philosophy but in the execution. Jack Kennedy established the Peace Corps which was an attempt to alleviate the condition of the poor in various foreign countries. Whether or not this was a successful program can be debated but there is no doubt that the poor throughout the world still exist. Closer to home President Johnson declared a “War on Poverty” and attempted to establish “The Great Society” which was a program fueled by taxation. This was a huge welfare program intended to improve the lives of the poor which collapsed under its own weight and left a legacy of welfare recipients that now span generations.

After all of these failures to help the poor it would seem obvious that wealth redistribution punishes the rich but does not reduce poverty or the number of the poor. However, to those people who know precisely how the rest of us should live and who seem to abound in every time period, they are once again determined to reduce poverty by taking wealth from those who earned it and give it to those who – in their opinion – deserve it even though they have done nothing to earn it. The complaint is that the number of poor people – not necessarily the poverty stricken but just the “poor” is increasing while the wealth is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. It is their idea that corporations should be responsible to their employees rather than to their shareholders seems to be one of the cornerstones of those who are seeking to remake the world of economics. The reality is that most of those employees also own stock in the corporations in the form of mutual funds, common stock, or 401(k)’s. The idea that corporate profits should be returned to the investors rather than to the employees in the form of bonuses and profit sharing is fundamental to their view of economics. The reality is that it was the investors who took the risk and it was their capital that allowed the company to create the jobs that those employees hold. To strip the corporations of their profits may give an immediate boost to the employees but in the long term it will result in fewer jobs as the corporation cannot upgrade equipment, expand the business, or even effectively compete. The basic premise in this philosophy is that the objective of business should be employment and not profit. This is the very foundation of socialism and it had always resulted in stagnation, high taxes, and a lower standard of living.

Currently Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela is in the process of redistributing the wealth. He has nationalized business, seized foreign assets, and fixed prices, all in an effort to improve the lot of the poor and improve their standard of living. Of course the result has been just the opposite as goods become scarce, black markets grow, and prices soar. While a laissez faire market may not be necessary for prosperity any plan to redistribute the wealth to alleviate poverty is doomed to failure. The poor are poor for a reason and universally that reason is not the luck of the draw but the result of their decisions. The government might mitigate their suffering but solving the problem of poverty cannot be done by government, the solution is in the hands of the poor themselves.

Critical Thinking and Politics

The question that continues to arise is “does anyone think critically anymore?” We are now treated on an almost daily basis to pictures of teenagers and college students waving placards and cheering for Obama. The media dutifully reports this without questioning what all of the cheering is about. The young Senator is for “change” and that seems to be all that is required to electrify the youth – out with the old and in with the new without regard for what is being tossed out and what is being brought in – other than its new. It is time a little critical thinking is employed when it comes to Obama. The media very carefully never challenges him or asks difficult questions and this has become so pervasive and obvious that even Saturday Night Live has parodied this, but when Senator Clinton tries to simply go with the flow on this, the same media attacks her. But the topper came with Obama’s idiotic statement regarding Iraq and Al Qaeda. The Senator proudly announces – when he finally begins to be a little more specific about the “changes” he intends to make – that he would immediately withdraw all American Troops from Iraq and let the natives duke it out. Then if Al Qaeda set up a base in Iraq then he would send the troops back.

Hello – is he so ignorant or so confident of the lack of critical thinking and understanding of the events during the last ten years by his youthful supporters that he honestly thinks that Al Qaeda ISN’T already in Iraq? Has the media taken this opportunity to point this salient fact out to the Senator? Has the media or anyone in that cheering crowd stopped to think that if we immediately withdraw from Iraq, Al Qaeda will not establish a base there because they already have a base there and they will seize the opportunity to regroup and flood the country with another round of murder, intimidation, and destruction. Then the US will have to send troops back in – under the command of Obama – at another huge cost in lives and treasure. If anything ever demonstrated his total lack of experience and unsuitability to be president – this one statement is it. Has the media or his band of rosy cheeked supporters challenged him on this? Not a chance – they simply gloss over it and the cheering and the parade moves on to what they clearly think will be his coronation next January.

But this lack of critical thinking isn’t limited to Senator Obama but the entire media seems to have eliminated any idea that their role is to challenge authority. Instead they seem to now believe that their role is to advance their own agendas, which increasingly seem to rest on emotion and are devoid of any concept of history, economics, and even political theory. The most recent, but certainly not the first nor the last, is the mess in Venezuela. Hugo Chavez rose to power promising the poor that he would eliminate their poverty and break the backs of the capitalists. To that end he fixed prices, nationalized industries, has driven out all of the foreign capitalists, suppressed the press, and launched diversionary attacks on the US. It is the diversionary attack on the US that has enamored the American left with him who did not waiver even when he announced he really wasn’t a “socialist” but a “Marxist”. If anything this self-evident announcement made him even more attractive to the American media and political left.

Well the chickens are coming home to roost, because Venezuela now has a shortage of food, the foreign capitalists are suing Venezuela for the cost of their property seized by Chavez, shortages are everywhere, the quality of life – even for the poor – has declined, and in the classic move by Marxists – he is blaming everyone but him self and his policies. Price controls were tried by the Emperor Diocletian, it failed, and of course he blamed everyone but his policies and himself. Richard Nixon tried to fix prices in the 1970’s which had the same result – shortages. Does the media challenge or even acknowledge the failed policies of Chavez? No indeed, they focus on his attacks on the US, US policies, and his threats regarding the oil companies and their efforts to recover the investments that he stole.

Then of course we have the tired old football being kicked around once again by the left and the media and that is “healthcare”. There is no doubt that the Healthcare system in the US is terrible but the media and left continue to call for government run universal healthcare, without once actually critically examining the results in other countries where the government has taken over the healthcare system. In Canada and the UK waits for critical surgery can be months or even years. In one recent case in Canada a pregnant woman was told the first available appointment with a specialist was in 10 months. In the UK the government control left them without sufficient doctors so they enticed foreign doctors into the country while incentivizing students to go to medical school. Now they have too many doctors and are trying to force the foreign doctors out. This was a failure of central planning when applied to Healthcare, but once again these obvious shortcomings of socialist style programs are ignored because critical thinking is not a strong point by either the media or those that believe the government can do anything efficiently.

Critical thinking is definitely in trouble because no one seems willing to point out that the Emperor has no clothes.

The Common Good and Marxism

Recently we are hearing the term “The Common Good” being bandied about by various politicians and public figures – almost always left leaning people who would describe themselves as “progressive”. However, the term “progressive” is in reality simply a code word for “socialist” or in the more extreme cases “Marxist”, but precisely what is meant by the common good? This is a term that has a long history but really has no specific definition because it is situational. Generally this is a term that describes a specific “good” that is shared and beneficial for all members of a community but just on the face of it, this is a definition that clearly does not work because not everyone would agree that a specific good was good for everyone. If a good is common between persons A and B may not be viewed as “good” to persons C and D. But in general it is agreed that water, food, and shelter are “common goods” and shared by all people.

Of course while these are indeed common goods, they are relative because the quality of food and shelter are not universally the same, indeed some people are homeless and others indigent. And at this point the Progressives enter with their agenda for the common good. In the interest of the common good the progressives have outlawed smoking, not on the basis of empirical science but on the basis of social engineering – it is bad for you and we are going to force you to stop smoking. They have outlawed free speech, on the basis that no one in society should be offended by anyone else. So we have hate speech and forbidden words but accept low class behavior, profanity, and blatant public sexuality on the basis of free speech and free expression, because to suppress these is not in the common good.

Increasingly the progressives are using the rhetoric of common good to advance their socialist agenda, hence we are being told that universal health care is in the common good. The failure of government sponsored universal healthcare everywhere it has been tried is ignored as is the cost. The corollary here is that the government needs to “tax the rich” to pay for these social programs espoused by the progressives. In the progressive world private businesses are inherently evil and should be taxed out of existence. The means of production belong to the “people” and everyone is entitled to a job regardless of their qualifications. This was the basis of communism in the USSR, Cuba, North Korea, all of Eastern Europe, and is currently underway in Venezuela. The clear and obvious failure of these progressive philosophies is simply ignored by the leftist intelligentsia on the basis that the implementation was flawed and in the right hands, it would work. Of course the question immediately rises as to “whose hands” we should entrust our government. So who falls into this camp of enlightened progressives who feel they should control the rest of us – well we find, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Barrack Hussein Obama, Sean Penn, George Clooney, Barbra Streisand, and a whole bevy of similar intellectual giants. The reality is that these people are actually trying to establish an Oligarchy where they run everything and the rest of us are reduced to servants and serfs who must work to support them while they confiscate our earnings in the name of the common good.

If we allow these progressives into power they will do everything they can to implement their agenda in the name of the common good. This will include a suppression of the constitutional right to bear arms; after all, guns kill people (the empty headedness of that statement totally escapes these intellectual giants). Smoking is already criminalized but then we can be assured that Marijuana will be legalized and the convoluted logic of that will be rationalized on the basis that most of the liberal smoke marijuana but would never smoke a cigarette. Illegal immigrants will be permitted to take advantage of all social services on the basis that they provide services for the common good. Of course universal health care would be high on their agenda because it isn’t fair that health services should be paid for or offered as charity. Of course every effort will be made to suppress capitalism via heavy taxes, onerous restrictions, environmental protection, and anything else they can dream up to keep businesses from making a profit because any profit is obscene. Without doubt they will take a leaf from Hugo Chavez and attempt to socialize the oil companies because they are making way too much money. Hillary Clinton has already stated that among her first actions as president will be to take the profits from the oil companies and invest them in other energy programs.

So when you hear the liberal media talk about progressive ideas and ideals, remember these are actually the people who view themselves as smarter than everyone else and thus are entitled to rule you, to take your money, to restrict your lives, and to govern what you eat and how you live in the name of the common good.

Death of the Democratic Party

The strength of the United States was founded upon or certainly has been maintained by the two party system. True, there have been attempts to establish third parties, the Bull Moose Party and the Dixiecrats come to mind, but these have never been successful and the country has continued to be steered by first one party and then the other, but always by a Republican or Democrat. This situation has moved the country first left and then right and then back again. Certainly at various times both parties have been plagued with failures, corruption, and scandal just as each has been distinguished by courage, principles, and success. But the dignity, honor, and strength that has characterized both parties seems to be waning, but more so with the Democratic Party which seems to have become impotent as its members are driven further and further left.

The Democratic Party began moving left with the election of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, but this shift was really barely perceptible and typical of the way the parties had balanced each other because prior to the election of FDR the country had been very conservative and that conservatism – rightfully or wrongfully – was held accountable for the disastrous Great Depression. But the real inflection point came with the appointment of Earl Warren as Chief Justice, an appointment made by the Republican President – Dwight Eisenhower. It was the Warren Court that started the judicial system down the pathway of judicial activism that continues to this day and it was the rulings of this court than began the dramatic shift to the left. Subsequent Republican Presidents have been able to slow this drift but they have not been able to stem the tide toward socialism and left wing activism.

The rule of the majority, the founding principle of the country, has been replaced through judicial activism by the rule of the minority. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights has been stretched by first one judge and then another to include the “right to not be offended” The Freedom of Religion has been distorted to guarantee the right of all minorities to practice their religion (?) while slowly curtailing the right of the Christian majority to practice theirs. The right to not be offended is trampling the Freedom Speech except when that Freedom of Speech is immoral, obscene, anti-American, or anti-Christian. As bad as these things are they still fall within the realm of “correctible”. The real threat to the country comes from the waning power and influence of the Democratic Party and the growing strength of the “progressives” which is the code word for socialists which in turn is code for Marxists.

This dramatic shift to the extreme left began with the founding of Moveon.Org by George Soros, a Hungarian by birth and political activist who claims (with some justification) to have been instrumental in bringing down the communist party in Poland and the governments of Georgia and Czechoslovakia. He has now embarked on a campaign to bring down the government of the United States and to replace it with one more to his liking, which is one where he is the power behind the throne. Clearly he is seeking a role – on a global scale – of Cardinals Richelieu and Mazarin. In effect, Soros is using his vast wealth to fund various organizations that support various politicians, who if elected, will be beholden to and controlled by him. This bevy of politicians under the sway of Soros includes, Clinton, Roberts, Gore, and Obama. The election of anyone of these would give Soros the power he seeks and the ability to redirect the government and the foreign policy of the United States. As a naturalized citizen he cannot be President but as one of the richest men in the world, he clearly intends to be the shadow president.

The Democratic Party abandoned Joe Lieberman because he supported the foreign policy of the government, he viewed Islam as a great threat and the War on Terror as real. Now we see Moveon.Org attacking General Petraeus without any condemnation from the leading candidates, who either dodge the issue or soft pedal it but do not condemn it. Now we see the same organization plus many of the front organizations supported by Hillary Clinton (who is supported by Soros) attempting to shut down talk radio and censor Rush Limbaugh. This blatant attack on free speech is not condemned by Moveon.Org or any of the Presidential candidates, instead they are again either silent or softly supporting the Moveon.Org positions.

The real issue here is the absolute silence from the “official” Democratic Party. Howard Dean – the Chairman of the Democratic Party appears to have been transported to some distant planet because he has not uttered any word about anything in months. In fact the Democratic Party appears to have disappeared entirely and has been replaced by Moveon.Org. The policies of the left are not being formulated and articulated by the Democratic Party, they are being formulated by George Soros and articulated by his mouthpieces – Clinton, Roberts, and Obama. The real Democrats like Dodd, Biden, and even Kennedy are silent while the extremists like Reid, Pelosi, and Murtha spend all of their time attacking the current administration rather than trying to run the country. All of this is signals a decline in the power and influence of the national Democratic Party and this represents a threat to the entire country. Remember, Soros has the objective of overthrowing the government and he intends to install himself as the power behind the President. Unfortunately I think Obama, Roberts, and Clinton think they can control Soros, just like the German politicians thought they could control Hitler.

Liberalism in Review

It seems self evident that Liberalism – as distinguished from what remains of the Democratic Party – is actually a belief system rather than any coherent political philosophy. Essentially Liberals believe that Capitalism is evil, that Marxism is good, appeasement of belligerents is the best foreign policy, and America is wrong. This Liberal belief system has been wrong throughout the 20th Century and its fallacious reasoning continues even today, if you doubt these statements let us review some statements and positions taken by well known Liberals.

Robert Heilbroner, the author of “The Worldly Philosophers” made this statement following the collapse of the Soviet Union; “the collapse if the Soviet system, hailed as a victory for human freedom, was also a defeat for human aspirations”. You wonder if the thousands of Ukrainians starved to death by the Communists or the thousands who died in Soviet Labor Camps lament this failure of Marxism to fulfill its Utopian promises. But liberals live in an Orwellian world where facts are ignored or re-interpreted to show that the Liberal position was correct. The New York Times columnist Tom Wicker, following the liberation of Czechoslovakia from the Communist yoke wrote; Freedom is not a panacea; and that communism failed does not make the Western alternative perfect, or even satisfying for millions who live under it”. Presumably it is satisfying enough for Mr. Wicker so that he continues suffering under the yoke of freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and capitalism.

But these are just recent views expressed by the denizens of shallow end of the intellectual pool. In 1921 Lincoln Steffens pronounced – after a visit to the Soviet Union, “I have seen the future and it works”. This statement was made during the period of famine and mass murder conducted by the Communists, but then data gathering, analysis, and critical reasoning has never been a hallmark of Liberals, they rely on their fundamental belief in the sanctity of government, the evils of individuality, and the need for people like themselves to rule over everyone else.

However, even as rumors regarding the failures of Communism began to creep out, George Bernard Shaw, spent 10 days in Russia and stated on his return “Russia flaunts her roaring and multiplying factories, her efficient rulers, her atmosphere of such hope and security has never been seen by a civilized country on Earth”. This was a typical statement made by the Western Intellectuals who could never be brought to believe that Communism was a failure and the Soviets were murderers. That disbelief continues even today as Western academics and pseudo-intellectuals like Michael Moore continue to extol the glories of Marxism and the evils of capitalism.

Perhaps the best example of how the Liberal establishment ignores facts and relies on their faith in left wing causes and icons, is the Alger Hiss case in 1947. Hiss was another of the East Coast Patricians who had been educated at Johns Hopkins and Harvard University. He joined the State Department in 1936 and attended the Yalta Conference. He was a leading diplomat but he was also a Soviet Spy, accused by Whitaker Chambers. Chambers was a nobody, a flunky, a common civil servant who accused a darling of the left, Hiss, of being a traitor and part of the spy ring of which Chambers was part. Naturally the left wing media launched into a full scale attack on Chambers, accusing him of being a liar, a spy, and a homosexual. The possibility that Chambers was telling the truth was never even considered.

After a sensational trial that included papers hidden in a pumpkin, Hiss was convicted. However, even after his conviction the liberal press viewed him as a political martyr and not as a convicted spy. It was Chambers who was castigated by the press and it was not until 1995, after the fall of the Soviet Union that papers from the Russian Secret Police revealed that indeed Hiss was a spy. This failure of the liberal press to accept incontrovertible proof that one of their own is an enemy is a vivid example of how the liberal establishment is faith driven and functions independently of facts.

Harry Truman – a Democrat – and perhaps one of the greatest American Presidents had the temerity to view the military expansion of the Soviet Union following WW II as a threat and in response created NATO. As enduring and as important of a deterrent this has been, the “intellectual” elite in 1949 condemned the President as a war monger. These intellectuals included Aaron Copeland, Clifford Odets, Norman Mailer, Arthur Miller, et. al., who accused Truman of “warmongering against the Soviet Union” and that the Truman Administration was comprised of the “enemies of man” and that the Truman policies would lead inevitably into a third world war.

So several things can be drawn from these Liberal attacks on things and people whom they believe do not hold the politically correct views. First, Liberals are not necessarily Democrats and the true Liberal is essentially anti-America, anti-capitalist, and anti-nationalist. Secondly, Liberals cannot be persuaded what ever they believe in is false even when presented with proof. Thirdly, that any action taken to preserve the safety of America is intrinsically wrong because it could cause people to dislike us. And fourthly, socialism and Marxism are superior to any form of government based on capitalism and the Soviet Union’s failure is not significant.

Blame America

Why do so many Americans seem so embarrassed about being American that they are compelled to apologize and hang their heads over the actions of the freest, most generous, and kindest nation ever to trod the earth? The French go into orgasmic elation over Napoleon and the “Glory” of France. Ignoring the pre-emptive wars initiated by Napoleon, the thousands of deaths, and the failure of France to ever recover its power after his fall. The Spanish reflect with pride on the reign of Phillip II, without regard to the rape of the New World or the Armada, which marked the beginning of the decline of Spain as a world power Even the Mongolians, leap to their feet and cheer at any mention of the “Great Khan (Genghis)”, who is noted for his barbarism as much as his generalship. But to mention George Washington or the founding fathers and we are immediately reminded that they owned slaves, they were hypocrites, and just a bunch of old white guys protecting themselves – hail academia!!

The fact is that since its founding, America has consistently been the freest and most welcoming nation in the world. While it took a while to free the slaves and even longer to accord the Negro the equal rights promised to all men, it was done and today everyone is assured of equal protection under the law. The United States has attempted to remain free of the entanglements of foreign treaties advised by George Washington, but modern technology has rendered this impossible. America has consistently been labeled a colonial power while systematically eliminating colonialism. It was America that wrested the Spanish Colonies of Cuba, Philippines, and the Caribbean Islands from Spain. These have all been freed but not necessarily for the better.

The real tests came with World War I, where the Germans were intent on dominating Europe and were ably supported by the Ottoman Empire and were well on their way when the United States entered the war on the side of the British. Had the United States maintained its isolationist policies Europe would be a far different place today. But this was the first taste Europe had of the awesome power of the United States. Not necessarily military power but industrial might. However, once the war was over, Europe returned to its old colonial ways and merrily began creating arbitrary countries and re-establishing their empires, while the US returned to its internal affairs, rendering the League of Nations totally impotent.

Following WW I Lenin overthrew the Czar and founded the USSR, a communist nation based on Marxism and glorified by the western intelligentsia. It is this same intelligentsia that is still attempting to establish the moral equivalence between the Soviet style Communism and the American Style Capitalism. The University of California Press in 2004 published titled “The American Gulag and then in 2005 published another book titled “The British Gulag”. The latter was written by a Harvard (no surprise there) Historian named Caroline Elkins. To equate these to Soviet Gulags is outrageous because the people in these prisons are there after being convicted in a court while those in the Soviet Prisons were commonly sent there without any trial or even informed of their crime.

During the 30’s and 40’s the Western Intellectuals couldn’t get enough of communism and George Bernard Shaw visited Russia in 1931 and wrote a panegyric upon his return – denying rumors at the time of mass starvation. In fact there was a systematic suppression of the growing evidence of mass starvation in Russia by the Western Press. The New York Times between 1921 and 1934 actively suppressed the truth about the Ukrainian famines and in 1932 won the Pulitzer Prize for a report that stated “any report of famine in the Ukraine was exaggerated or malignant propaganda, even thought the author (William Duranty) had been there and personally knew of the millions dying of starvation. These are the same people, the same intellectuals, and the same media that are still attempting to demonstrate the bankruptcy of capitalism and the evil empire of America.

Then came WW II which was the direct result of the failure of France and England to grasp their aspirations for territorial expansion and their crippling punishment of Germany. When it became obvious that the neither the French nor the British could withstand the onslaught of Germany, they turned to the United States of help. This actually marked the turning point in world history where the New World – the United States – became the world power – the hegemonic power – and Europe started its ongoing decline into irrelevance. But it was the awesome power of America – both military and industrial power – that ultimately defeated the Axis Powers of Japan, Germany, Italy, and the turncoat French.

The great tragedy in the aftermath of WW II turned out to be the creation of the United Nations. The League of Nations was thought to have failed because America failed to join so the belief was that if America joined the United Nations it was sure to succeed. It has been an unmitigated disaster for America. It has failed in every endeavor it has undertaken. It has not prevented any war, has not prevented or even alleviated poverty; it has become a highly corrupt and ineffectual organization whose only purpose seems to be to thwart America, while expecting America to pay for everything. Worse, the American Left as well as the leftists the world over seem to think that the UN has the moral authority over America so America should not act in its best interest without UN approval. The real irony is that the UN ignores every other country that acts unilaterally but castigates the US.

Another irony is that the political left continues to wail about the poverty in the US without actually understanding the realities. The reality is that being poor in America is a far cry from being poor anywhere else. In America 46% of the “poor” own their own homes, 72% have washing machines, 60% own microwave ovens, 92% have color TV’s, 76% have air conditioning, and 66% own one or more cars. Two thirds of poor households in America have two or more rooms per person and the average poor person in America has more living space than the average person in Paris. In spite of all of these advantages and contributions to the world, the American Intellectuals still view America as oppressive. However, I note they don’t move to Cuba, Russia, or even to North Korea so I guess America isn’t as oppressive as they maintain. Can you spell hypocrite?

Progressive Thinking An Oxymoron

The morning paper always brings indications that the Neo-Marxists, now called Progressives, simply don’t understand economics, politics, or people. They continue their attacks on that moron in the White House, without actually specifically describing his failures and attributing his successes to the invisible and not so invisible puppet-masters. But their lack of thinking and understanding go far beyond this because they simply cannot give up their commitment to individual “rights”. Among these rights we find the right to hold a job – not any job but a job that pays a “living wage”. Presumably what this means is that these narco-illiterates must be given jobs that allow them to continue supporting their various offspring, keep up their child support, maintain their drug habits, and keep a roof over their heads. Therefore, it is time to raise the minimum wage apparently on the assumption that these minimum wage jobs should allow for the foregoing.

Then we find the right to an education. Of course for most of us taxpayers, we think that this right already exists. The public schools are available to everyone but of course you have to actually attend the classes. These means getting up early, catching the bus, going to class, and actually listening to what is being taught and of course – doing the work. Unfortunately, that four letter word “work” keeps appearing and those people, who were raised on the progressive ideas of entitlement, work never enters the equation. After all – what was the purpose of affirmative action? The whole idea was to provide the “minorities” with an equal opportunity to get an education at a prestigious university, without actually doing all of the work to either get there or stay there. Fortunately the alarm has been sounded within the minority community and while the progressives continue to beat the drum of racism it is sounding more and more like a dirge and less and less like a call to arms.

But to return to the morning paper, we find that the union movement is spending most of its time and money on political causes – causes generally not supported by the membership – and less and less on organization and recruiting. Naturally the real issue here is the anti-labor Republicans are in power and everything must be done to return the progressives to power. However, when you read the fine print, it seems that the overly generous benefits garnered by the unions, is killing jobs. It seems that the UAW members pay only 7% of their healthcare costs while the average American pays 32%. The Japanese auto manufacturers have approximately $1400 in profit in each vehicle with $400 going to healthcare. General Motors has only $700 in profit in each vehicle with $1000 going to healthcare. Of course nothing is said about the featherbedding and counterproductive union rules that keep excess employees and slow down the manufacturing process and even less is said about the declining membership which is driven by the declining number of jobs.

The progressives cannot give up their idea of rights and the responsibility of the government to redistribute wealth more equitably. Essentially these neo-Marxists, which is what they are, think that those people who worked hard, who attended school, who got an education or training that prepared them for the workforce, are obligated to share what they earn with the “less fortunate.” How I hate that term because the implication is that those who worked hard some how “got lucky” and got a good high paying job, while those who slacked off in school, who failed to get an education, who had multiple children they couldn’t afford, and who are too lazy to fix the situation, deserve to share in the wealth generated by the hard worker. This idea of wealth redistribution is called ‘progressive taxation (ironic or honest terminology -??)” and masquerades under the banner of “equality”. Of course the actual term is “egalitarianism`” which is the cornerstone of Marxism, but the Progressives really expect to take your money and redistribute it, not theirs. They are truly the embodiment of Orwell’s Animal Farm – where some Pigs are more equal than others.

The Undeserving Rich

I’m Rich --- and probably you are too but of course neither of us was aware of this fact until our liberal friends pointed out that we are among the “fortunate fifth” and that it was high time that we started paying our “fair share” of income tax. This is what is behind the drive by the liberal left to rescind any tax breaks in order to ensure the “rich pay their fair share”. Of course you and I know that the truly wealthy – like Senator Kerry pay very little tax (12% for Heinz-Kerry) because they can afford to pay the very best accountants to find ways to avoid paying taxes. In short it isn’t the really wealthy who are paying taxes and supporting all of these wonderful pork barrel projects like the “big dig” (thank you Senators Kerry and Kennedy), it is the middle class – the very people who are being promised tax relief and who are in fact carrying almost the entire tax burden. But the government needs more money so the “rich” have to pay. But the reality is that it is those of us who are keeping our nose above water that will be robbed once again because we are “rich”. So how do these liberals get by with selling this snake oil? Who is buying it?

The people who buy this fall into two categories, one is that group of people who pay no taxes but get plenty of free benefits from the government. In effect they are selling their vote to the politician that promises to continue giving them all of these benefits while taking the money out of some one else’s pocket to pay for them. These are the people who say they “vote their pocket book” when in point of fact it is some one else’s pocketbook they are voting to empty into theirs.

The second category is that group of naïve` people – who actually believed what they were taught in school by professors who never held a job, never had to meet a financial objective, and actually believe that the government should tax the wealthy because they are “fortunate” and that corporations are essentially evil enterprises that are exploiting their workers. These are the people who truly believe that it is right to take money from the undeserving rich (you and me) and give it to the deserving poor. In effect the rich don’t deserve their wealth because they just got lucky and therefore should have it taken away by the government and redistributed to those who have less – those who are less fortunate. Although the liberals would dispute this their position relative to taxation can be summarized by the statement

“From each according to his ability. To each according to his needs.”

Does that phrase sound familiar? It should because it is a quote from “The Communist Manifesto.” Is it any wonder that the liberals prefer to call themselves “progressives” rather than the more accurate—but out of style – “Marxists”. If they actually articulated what they are attempting to do i.e. create and egalitarian society people might catch on. Naturally, just as in Animal Farm, the elites (meaning the professors and their intellectual friends) would be the most highly revered and rewarded because they are simply smarter (and not profit oriented either but I digress).

But are those of us who exist in that rarefied atmosphere of the “fortunate fifth” – meaning that we are in that glorified group of the top 20% of wage earners in the country—have we truly won “life’s lottery” as described by Dick Gephart? The (insulting) implication is that we just got lucky while those who are “less fortunate” were simply unlucky. Is this an accurate portrayal or is our “luck” the result of our decisions? For example, who went to school, had an after school job, saved their money, went to college, worked to pay for their education, and then left school and got a high income job? Who waited to have children until they were married and could afford them? Who goes to work in the dark and comes home in the dark? Who cut class to hang out on street corners? Who finally dropped out of school because it was a bunch of old guys telling them what to do? Who had a series of illegitimate children? Who got a job then lost it because they couldn’t get up that early to get to work? Who blamed everyone else for their lack of income, their old car, their drug problem? Who is on welfare and feels the government should provide better benefits to them? It seems to me that those that were lucky and won life’s lottery seem to have made a number of good decisions in association with some significant sacrifices while those that lost in life’s lottery made a long succession of poor decisions and focused exclusively on immediate self-gratification.

It seems to me that those of us who fall into the undeserving rich category deserve to be there by dint of hard work, good decisions, and a lot of self-sacrifice while those who live in poverty and have a marginal existence got there as the result of poor work habits, bad decisions, and a lack of self-sacrifice. Therefore, the idea that the “rich” are undeserving because they got lucky is not only a total falsehood it is downright insulting. But the liberals feel sorry for these people and think that the government should provide them housing and income simply because they are poor. Well as I recall, in the United States of America all men are created equal so if the government thinks they should subsidize housing for the poor, why don’t they subsidize mine—after all I’m a citizen too and the Lord knows I could use some help. But this isn’t the way liberals think is it? They see that the rich live in nice houses, drive nice cars, and pay their bills, so clearly they can afford to give some of their wealth to the poor simply because the poor need it. This was Robin Hood’s philosophy but as I recall the Sheriff of Nottingham had quite a different take on Robin’s activity. That evil ungrateful, exploitive Sheriff actually thought Robin Hood was actually robbing people – like a common criminal. Of course the liberal spin is that taking money from the rich to redistribute it to the poor is morally justified because the rich have too much and the poor have too little. This was the philosophy of Robin Hood but it was also the philosophy of Karl Marx which was carried out by Nikolai Lenin with disastrous results but this failure has not deterred our liberal intelligentsia because they still refuse to recognize any individual’s responsibility for his circumstances.

So on a parting note consider this:

“Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual once and for all.”

This is a quote from Nikita Krushchev that really describes what the liberal establishment is trying to do by focusing on societies “victims” and subordinating individual rights to those of these “groups”.

“From each according to his ability. To each according to his needs.”

Remember these words because this is the unspoken mantra of the liberal establishment.