Musings on a Wednesday

So many things astonished me today – not because I was surprised at them but because I was so accurate in the expectation of their occurrence. But before I launch into that discussion perhaps we should review the liberal establishment in general. The most basic thing about the liberal establishment is that they love people and want to help them no matter how much they hurt them. Take the black community for example. Under Jim Crow they had intact families and a cohesive community. While this isn’t a plea to return to segregation, the reality is that the death of Jim Crow brought white guilt to the surface. Suddenly we had affirmative action, busing, handouts, and government programs aimed at redressing past wrongs. Then the professional racists like Jesse Jackson emerged along with the Reverend Wright who saw racism in any attempt to enforce the law or expect civil behavior – the result has been a generation dependent on welfare and government handouts along with the demise of the nuclear black family and a cohesive community. The liberal community continues to fight poverty and injustice within the black community no matter how morally destructive their solutions are, because they are convinced they are right. Now we have the Occupy Wall Street movement, endorsed by the liberal community in the form of the President, Nancy Pelosi, the SEISU, Acorn (under various names), and of course George Soros. On May day – the International Communist Holiday – the OWS die hards were out once again – rioting, destroying property, but only on the bastions of liberalism on the West Coast and of course NYC. The turnout was pathetically small but the participants – when interviewed for TV – demonstrated such ignorance of even basic economics that it was astonishing. One young man – representative of them all – came down squarely against any idea of personal responsibility. He wasn’t actually against capitalism because it wasn’t clear that he even understood the term, but he was for government programs. He felt the government should give “free stuff” like food, shelter, healthcare, and “other stuff”. Nothing was mentioned about employment or who was going to pay for all of this stuff – it was the government’s responsibility to just give this “stuff” to the people. This really demonstrates the essential liberal philosophy which is that the government should take care of all people and that the rich should be forced to share their wealth through confiscatory taxes. The of course we have that genius in the White House who has just committed $2B to Afghanistan even though that country is a country in name only and one of the most corrupt in the world. He has just announced his campaign slogan of FORWARD which I presume is intended to prevent people to look backward and to evaluate his track record. That track record is littered with broken promises, unfulfilled promises, and failures. This is a president whose track record is even more pathetic than Jimmy Carter’s. It was easy to predict that he would ignore his track record and simply promise to do better while his opponent will undo all of the giveaway programs and entitlements. The only surprise was that he didn’t blame George Bush as part of his campaign.

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.

Undefined Politics

It is truly amazing how politicians throw around words without ever being challenged to define or explain. Instead the media simply goes along and reports what was said, the population accepts what was said without questioning, and nothing ever seems to change because these same people with the same squishy positions keep getting elected by a people who are either too dumb or too lazy to question what is being said.

In recent days the stock market has reached record highs, retail businesses are reporting solid profits, the unemployment is at the lowest point it has been in years, the trade deficit is declining and the economy in general is humming along. Ordinarily this would be a reason for the politicians to gloat and attempt to take credit, but instead we find the liberal establishment shaking their heads in despair as they attempt to put a negative spin on what would ordinarily be signs for cheering.

It seems that among all of this good news the politicians have discovered that instead of cheering over the low unemployment they are concerned about how the “working poor” are not sharing in this general prosperity. But the unasked question is “who precisely are the working poor?” In fact who are the “poor”working or not. These terms are never defined with any precision even when pushed, which is rare. The poverty line in the US is $20,000 for a family of 4 and with this measure the people living in poverty in the US is approximately 37 million. But of course poverty is a relative term and who precisely is included in this figure? The reality is that people in poverty rarely stay there instead they cycle in and out of poverty. But the point is who is “poor?” Again the reality is that in any given year approximately 12% of the population would be regarded as “poor” but then these people are rarely permanently poor but are only poor for a period of time and then move on up the economic ladder. It is also worth noting that these figures include people under 18 years so the number of adults living in poverty or being poor is substantially smaller and even so – none of this defines or explains “the working poor”. After all poor people are not necessarily impoverished and these figures include people under 25 which mean students who rarely work full time, but work at minimum wage.

Furthermore, no profile is ever offered regarding the poor or the working poor. What is there age? How much education do they have? Have they been arrested? How many smoke marijuana or take other drugs? How many of these poor people abuse alcohol? What is the employment record of the average poor person? How many families are in this category and how many in that family are working? Obviously answers to these questions would be very revealing and could easily make the politician claiming that there is a problem and that the minimum wage must be raised look foolish. Any family who cannot find and keep a job paying more than minimum wage has much greater problems that must be addressed if the poverty issue is to be addressed with any hope of success. Still, the politicians cry about the working poor and no one seems to want to look very close at this problem.

So the working poor is a relative term that is very controversial and rarely defined by the politicians who bandy it about. But if the term ‘poor” is not well defined and understood what about “rich”. The liberal establishment is constantly calling for the government to “tax the rich” but they never really define precisely who is rich. The call is always to raise the taxes on the “rich” but in practice the tax changes impact everyone so in effect the "rich" are the employed.

What about “racism”? We have politicians and wannabe politicians like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Julian Bond who accuse anyone with whom they disagree of being “racist” when in fact they seem to be the most racist of all. If race is considered and weighted in terms of blacks – that is good and not racist in their eyes. They justify this on the basis of “leveling the playing field”. However, that level playing field never seems to include competition or merit. If the only thing considered is qualifications and performance that is viewed as racist. Hence affirmative action which is nothing other that racism against whites is viewed as good. Therefore, it an effort to garner the black vote politicians extol the value of affirmative action and spout rhetoric in favor of stamping out racism, when in fact racism has been on the wane for some time.

What is considered racism today is largely an example of class-ism. Turn on any TV channel in any city and you will see black faces reading the news. These are people who got their jobs on the basis of ability – not through affirmative action. What sets them apart from those blacks who are perpetual victims of racism? Perhaps the distinguishing factors are education, speaking proper English, and dressing appropriately. We hear complaints from blacks about racism every time they get into trouble with the law. Perhaps if they obeyed the law they wouldn’t have difficulty with the police. Yet, all of the black leaders maintain their power and influence by perpetuating the idea of racism. So when it comes to politicians a little critical thinking is in order but this must be done at the individual level because the media, academia, and the politicians cannot gather the courage to tell the truth or to be precise.

What Ever Happened to Red China

When did the “Peoples Republic of China” become simply “China”? As far as I know the Chinese government still thinks of themselves as “The Peoples Republic”, yet the media no longer refers to them as the PRC. For that matter when did China cease being “Red China” and morph into the PRC and then to “China”? Are they less “Red” today? Has China become democratic or less communist? Of course not, what has happened is the media wants to turn world attention away from the abuses by the remaining Communist Regimes. North Korea is no longer “Communist North Korea” instead it has evolved into “North Korea” or if any negative connotation is offered, it is referred to as a “rogue regime”, but rarely if ever is it referred to as “communist”. The same is true of Cuba, suddenly Castro has gone mainstream as the Left tries to garner acceptance for his worker’s paradise, while ignoring the continued suppression of dissent and persecution of those who dare to challenge him. Did Communism die with the Berlin Wall? The recent anti-war protests were organized by the communists but for the most part in their haste to turn opinion against the administration the part played by the communists has either been glossed over or ignored altogether. What is going on in the media and when did communism die? For that matter what about its birth?

Interestingly, Communism is actually a moral reaction to capitalism and both are simply structured philosophical descriptions of market dynamics and part of the Science (?) of Economics. Commerce was largely unexplored or at least languished among the scholarly pursuits until the 1600’s. The history of the development and evolution of Economics is eloquently described in the “Worldly Philosophers”[1] Adam Smith in his book the “Wealth of Nations” actually is describing the real workings of the world of commerce at the dawning of the Industrial Age. Communism as described by Marx and Engels came as a philosophical reaction to the dark side of capitalism. This reaction can be summed up as being a moral judgment on the unequal distribution of wealth but it is a long way from formulating a philosophy and acting upon it. So Communism wasn’t born until 1917.

What seems to have escaped everyone’s attention is that governments can be capitalist, socialist, or even communist, but the actual form of government is none of those. Governments are democratic and freely elected, or they are hereditary absolute monarchies, or dictatorships. Communist governments are and have always been dictatorships. No Communist government has ever been freely elected. Yet from the very outset the Leftists have been unable to get past the inherent morality of Communist philosophy and see its failures in practice. In 1921 Lincoln Steffens upon his return from the Russia of Lenin and Stalin said “I have seen the future and it works”.[2] Of course virtually all of the leftist writers and journalists at the time were offering very positive views of Communism. So the positive view of Communism has a long history and includes some very impressive names who offered if not outright support, certainly provided a patina of approval. Shortly after assuming the Presidency President Truman said “You are needlessly worried about Russian Communism, I am worried about British Imperialism”. A view he quickly came to realize was erroneous but a position that the liberal Leftists never came to share.

Instead the media and the Leftist intelligentsia glossed over the excesses, blatant falsehoods, and most of all the atrocities committed by the Communist Regime in Russia and later in Cambodia, Cuba, China, and Viet Nam. These were largely ignored and the left wing intellectuals continued their love affair, providing the Russians with atomic secrets among other traitorous acts. Even today the Goldberg’s are viewed as martyrs by the Left and the posthumous proof that Robert Oppenheimer was in fact providing secrets to the Communists was simply ignored by the media. But now we have the papers of Senator McCarthy describing his attacks on Hollywood and the State Department, those “bastions of “right thinking” and the media are once again in a fighting frenzy. Senator McCarthy was certainly a flawed man and there is little doubt that he grossly overplayed his hand, but the fact is Hollywood was and still is filled with actors, producers, and directors who are filled with animosity toward America and American ideals and freedoms, in the words of Jeanne Kirkpatrick the “blame America first crowd.” Today “McCarthyism” is an epithet to be hurled at anyone who dares to challenge the Leftist intellectuals and their anti-American and pro-communist stance. The fact is that Senator McCarty was not totally wrong. . If you doubt this watch any Oliver Stone movie. He is an historical revisionist determined to show the world how history should have been.

But, what about Red China – how did it become not Red? How did Cuba cease being Communist Cuba and become “Castro’s Cuba”? Are these countries no longer “Communist”? Have I missed some dramatic change of heart? Are these countries now allowing free speech, freedom of the press, private ownership? Not that I know of, instead they continue to be oppressive states that imprison people for simply disagreeing with them. No dissent is allowed. The liberal press (a redundancy) paints a rosy picture of China today – it is a worker’s paradise. They are actually allowing elections at the village level. Of course, the old USSR held elections as well and you could vote for any Communist Party Candidate of your choice. The same is true in China today. It is just as Red and just as oppressive as it always was. It is interesting to me that the liberals today see China on the way to reform much like Taiwan and Korea. Apparently I missed something here because Taiwan was a leftover from the old Chiang Kai Shek regime and has been a democratically elected republic for a very long time. It evolved from a dictatorship but that was a very short period. As far as I know Korea is divided into two parts, the South which is a democratic government and the North which is a brutally repressive communist regime. So the “reforms” that the Chinese Government are implementing seem to me to be commercial more that political. Apparently this is just “realpolitik” because China wants to sell to the US and the US wants to buy. Red China is dead – Long Live China – the worker’s paradise.
[1] The Worldly Philosophers, Robert Heilbroner, Simon & Schuster, 1953,
[2] Useful Idiots, Mona Charen –Regenery, 2003