Oh, really?

[aadler]

 
Quote from an article I read today:

Conservatives are living fossils, trapped in a time when lying was considered a bad thing, taking other people’s property was a sin, spending money that doesn’t exist was a self-destructive folly, and believing you could “build that” was a sign of adulthood.

Today’s liberals —

(Oh, excuse me, they call themselves ‘progressives’ now, since decades of bad policy turned ‘liberal’ into an insult … which is funny, since the use of ‘liberal’ came about precisely because the Progressives of the early 20th century gave the label such a bad name.)

— today’s ‘progressives’ are so far advanced now beyond such antiquated notions.

Comments

[skarman.livejournal.com]

I'd love to read that article and find out who wrote it. AND pass it around to everybody I know, both online and off. I can show them how a liberal actually describes themselves and their ideology.

To recap: to a liberal, lying is not a bad thing, thus it is a GOOD thing, something to be admired.

Check!

To a liberal, 'taking other people's property a.k.a. stealing, appropriating, whatever-name-you-wanna-give-it, is a GOOD thing. After all, it's all in the name of 're-distributing' the 'wealth'.

To a liberal, spending money that doesn't exist is a good thing. Just look at Greece or Zimbabwe to see how well of they are. Everybody is fat and happy there. To them, economic principles are ancient beliefs that should go on the heap to be burned because they get in the way of rational thinking.

To a liberal, building something with your own hands, using your mind to get ahead isn't a sign of adulthood. It's a sign that you're dangerous. You're not part of the 'flock' of idiots... pardon me, baby ducks following your dear leader's edicts. After all, you are only an adult if you sit on your posterior all day, getting government handouts.

Let me guess, this article's comment section was probably filled with a lot of people supporting the writer's viewpoints. These few lines, show clearly what idiocy is being shoveled and how widespread it has become. They are comfortable enough to actually clearly states their goals.

And people wonder why I can see clearly that a new revolution is coming. I have to say that while I abhor this person's views, I'm glad to defend them so that more and more people can actually come to understand what exactly it is we're facing. Soon enough, we'll be facing these people because like the old quote says, there will come a time that the camel's back will be broken and it looks like they're fast approaching that point.

[aadler]

The quote came from this article, which actually does not present or espouse liberal views. I cited the passage I did because it (to me) sums up so much that is wrong in today’s society, but the article itself went a lot deeper and provided a substantially original argument against the attitudes in that citation.

I, too, think that bad times are coming. I just don’t know what form they will take.

[skarman.livejournal.com]

*facepalms*

I know that site and you are correct, they're generally rather conservative. I still say he's correct in his, admittedly, tongue-in-cheek description of liberals.

[lostboy-lj.livejournal.com]

I think the author's suggestion that progressives believe lying is okay might be a tad arch (same goes for his whole "Homo Cathodicus" proposition in general). Using the master liar Clinton as the archetypal progressive for this example strikes me as pushing it too, particularly given that he was a southern Democrat and a political chameleon who mainly ascended to power by playing both sides against the middle. His postmodernist proclivities are one thing ("Depends on what the definition of "is" is), but attributing them directly to progressivism is another. I have come across postmodern conservatives as well, and they are equally disturbing for exactly the same reasons.

That said, the other three observations are arguably accurate, and very troubling. Particularly the third, because it's an illusion that I've seen self-described "moderates" and "conservatives" indulge in as well. Returning to Clinton for a moment, I think the most simultaneously disturbing and humorous part of his 2012 DNC speech was the part when he started waggling that famous finger of his and telling us that Paul Ryan (and by extension, all those "radical" Republican budget hawks) didn't understand "basic math."

It's even somewhat true, though not at all in the way Bill Clinton meant it. The kind of math Paul Ryan doesn't understand (or, at least, can't currently overcome) is electoral math, in the sense that over 49 percent of American households receive some form of transfer payment from the government. The key to building political majorities in this country has long been predicated on promising them money, either in the form of tax breaks, subsidies, patronage, cheap loans or cold hard cash. If enough people are drawn into the racket, voting themselves other people's money (or even, as many predicted, their own money) ceases to feel like thievery, and instead becomes a case of "I'm a sucker for not getting some of this free money."

[skarman.livejournal.com]

Actually, I think he is correct in that they think it is alright for them or their leaders to lie to them. Let's take a look, shall we?

Bill Clinton. Charlie Rangel. Al Sharpton. Nancy Pelosi. Several other ranking members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Several Caucasian members of the DNC in the Senate and the House, including Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

What do these people have in common? They are all liars, thieves and cheats.

Billy-boy's achievements have already been discussed. After all, he raised obfuscation to an artform many lawyers wished they could emulate.

Charlie Rangel cheated on his taxes. He cheated on the government's funding for an office in NYC. He cheated on so many things, just to fill his pockets and he was caught. He was brought before an ethics committee yet, his constituents, his fellow democrats and generally most members of the black community stood by him, arguing it was racism that prompted this witchhunt on an honest pillar of the community. Basically, because he's black, it's okay for him to lie, cheat and steal and we shouldn't do anything about it. He DESERVES that money because his great-great-great-whatever was a slave. Had it been someone like Allen West, they'd have crucified him simply because he's a conservative. They did it to the former CEO of that Pizza company that was in the running for the presidential nomination of the RNC.

Al Sharpton. Another liar who used events like Tawana Brawley's lies about being raped and several similar events that all turned out to be lies so he could line his pockets. Every single one of these 'crusades' was finally proven to be nothing more than a lie. People were killed by angry mobs because he suggested they were responsible. Has he ever been held accountable for his lies? Nope, he's got an opinion show on MSNBC and is held in high esteem even though he can't speak anything but ebonics.

Several other members of the Congressional Black Caucus, like the honorable Maxine Waters who supposedly steered government money towards a bank her hubby was involved with. Of course, she's been cleared of wrongdoing by the ethics committee. Funny how her friends couldn't find anything wrong about that, hmm? Nor any of her followers.

Or Dem. Rep. Hank Johnson who, during a committee meeting stated quite clearly towards the commander of the US Pacific Command that he feared that stationing 8000 US Marines and their dependents on Guam would cause the island to tip over.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, when confronted by the MSM (who usually shield her and other Dems) by the fact that the economy is in the tank and that gas prices have doubled, keeps insisting with a straight face that the economy has turned around, even though even the CBO and every other government office that measures these things, officially declares it isn't so.

I could go on and on but you get the gist of it, I hope? These people are the heroes of the liberals, minorities and other groups who depend on their largesse. Just like they know that their butter comes from the powerful unions who fund their campaigns.

Take a look at California. They've raised the taxes, added new taxes and sent out a statement that the projected revenue income would help them cut down the massive debt they've accrued. The operative words being 'Projected Revenue'. And the liberals were cheering them on and jeering on the conservatives, tea partiers and repubs. They conveniently forgot the operative words (or don't now what projected means) or the fact that more and more businesses and working people are leaving the state. A shrinking tax base means that 'projected revenue' which is spread out over a fiscal year will NEVER become realized revenue. Liberals don't, won't or can't understand that.

[skarman.livejournal.com]

They believe the lies, the flash.

Take a look at the rest of their heroes. Rappers like 50 Cent. People who've raised tacky to an artform with their bling. As long as there is flash, everything is awright, yah.

You are correct that there are similar people on the other side but there is a term for them, RINOs or 'Republican In Name Only'. For that is what they are. They may be paying members of the RNC but they are all for putting the taxpayer's money in their pockets and lining their buddies pockets. They lie, cheat, steal, obfuscate and turn with the prevailing winds as it suits them. And their constituents eat it up instead of calling them on it.

To me, that means one thing. That their constituents, that the Old Media a.k.a. the MSM love the fact that they lie. They see it as a badge of honor. Anybody not doing these things, anybody who actually tries to change things for the better NOW, instead of kicking the can down the road, is vilified and attacked. The whole 'Waterbottle-gate' fracas surrounding Marco Rubio comes to mind. Juxtapose that with the Celebrity-status of the President and First Lady. Getting the Nobel Peace Prize without doing anything to actually warrant it. Presenting an award at the Oscars. Even Nikki Finke of Deadline Hollywood was disgusted with that little drama, just read her live-blog of the Oscars.

Lostboy, that article is deadon. Anti-heroes and outright criminals are the new posterboys and girls for the masses. Heroes aren't welcome anymore.

[lostboy-lj.livejournal.com]

Lots of politicians are "liars, thieves and cheats", and that distinction isn't limited to the left side of the aisle. That's what I found so darkly funny about Joe Wilson's "You lie" outburst during the joint Congressional address. Obama *was* lying, to be sure, but making that admonition in the epicenter of the D.C. Liar's Guild transcended all forms of irony known to man. The political class in this country lies like they are taking in breath.

But I think the point the author was making wasn't so much about individual progressive politicians who lie, but about progressivism as a whole. The "Homo Cathodicus" creature he defines calls to mind Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

American Progressivism has its modern roots in the philosophies of (vile, in my own estimate) intellectuals like Woodrow Wilson. He sought to overthrow Madison's ideal of a multi-polar, individualistic republic with a decentralized distibution of power due to many competing interests and institutions. Wilson imagined a different sort of republic, much more in line with the same 20th century ideologies that fueled Naziism and Communism -- that is a highly centralized and concentrated pyramidal power structure. In this republic, the economic and social engines would be steered by various "experts" (unelected regulatory bodies, blue ribbon commissions, czars, etc) whose authority would in turn be preserved by several highly invested and mutually dependent voting blocs (namely labor unions and trade guilds, the chronically impoverished, and -- eventually -- aggrieved social and ethnic groups and large, unwieldy financial institutions and trusts). It's a demographic game based on cobbling together enough interest groups to maintain a majority, implementing a de-facto command economy via an ever-expanding tax-and-regulatory regime, then delegating the decisions of that economy to politically-aligned experts who will judge every political whim to be a paradigm of efficiency and morality (see Soviet Union). This is the essence of progressivism today. All of the cultural parasites of progressivism (you mentioned Al Sharpton as one, but there are of course many others) are helpful mainly in that their lies antagonize and demoralize people most likely to stand in the way of the progressive juggernaut, but they aren't the main rank-and-file charged with carrying out the plan.

None of participants in this plan actually need to be "liars" themselves, let alone believe that there's isn't anything wrong with being dishonest. I would say that the vast majority of progressives don't think they are being lied to by their leaders. I'd guess Many of them don't think very much at all about the economic fallacy at the heart of the command economy -- that governments know how to spend wealth better than the people who created it -- and few would be expected to, since so far the illusion of lots of persistent common wealth has held up. As bad a spot as we are in economically, and as deep a pit of debt we've dug, we have yet to feel the pains that past failed nation-states and empires have felt (the food and energy shortages, the the total breakdown of civil authority, the riots etc).

This is due to many tactics, such as quantitative easing, that will actually make the blow much harder when it finally arrives. I've laughed my ass off at the current sequestration nonsense being bandied about. The notion that $85 billion in cuts out of a bloated whale of a $4 trillion dollar budget will trigger Armageddon? Now THAT is a lie so outrageous there isn't a pant leg not on fire in Washington D.C. -- and that includes the Repubs who are playing into the political melodrama in order to jockey for position internally.

And of course, the REALLY BIG LIE goes even deeper than that, and that's the position held by almost all Democrats these days (plus many, many more Republican's than their party leadership would like to admit): whatever size the current government Leviathan is, that's the ideal size for it, and any cuts at all are therefore greedy and evil. Maybe scores of progressive voters foolishly believe that lie, but that's the nature of lying itself: you lie in order to deceive people.

[skarman.livejournal.com]

Oh, I agree with you wholeheartedly that both sides have their share of liars. And the fact that they LIKE the size of government because it allows them to line their pockets, just like all those special-interest groups do.

The thing is, unlike here in Europe, where we all grumble about the waste of the European Parliament, on how our elected leaders are selling our freedoms and wealth off just so they can get that seat on the board or get re-elected, the people of the United States can do something about it.

The current run of anti-gun laws is the focal point. Unlike the US we've been disarmed and all we can do is grumble but keep on paying, giving our hard-earned cash to those holding up their hands and demanding their 'fair share'. In the US, however, people are fighting back. Companies are fighting back. They vote with their pocketbooks. For instance, MagPul has announced that it will leave the state it's in if the anti-gun bill the state government is drafting gets made into law. It will take 600 jobs plus eightyfive million dollars worth of tax revenue with it. Other companies have stated they won't be selling their products to New York law enforcement since they won't be able to sell them to the lawful citizens.

Boehner seems to be gathering a group of congressmen and representatives behind a bill that will stop all payments to congress if they don't actually start working on the economic problems the country has. States are reasserting their independence, something they had given away for decades. Local law enforcement is plainly stating its opposition towards Federal Edicts.

I know big business is in bed with both sides, paying good money to have it their way but when the people themselves start to say "Enough" in the USA? Things will be happening. I can't say which way it will change but I can say that it will happen. And I hope it won't but I think it will be a second revolution, just as big and bad as the first one. The lines are being drawn. The government is using their media arm like a club. Watching MSNBC is like watching scenes from the movie 'V'. The US government has become that totalitarian machine.

[lostboy-lj.livejournal.com]

The latest anti-gun push doesn't worry me so much, to be honest, mostly because I already know it will fail to produce the desired effects. For one thing, Obama is arguably the nation's most successful gun salesman, with over 65 million gun sales since 2009, and -- due to the latest rumblings about greater gun regulation -- with every major dealer either operating at full capacity or unable to meet current demand. For another thing, the 300 million guns in the hands of private citizens, many of them in states that won't comply with federal gun grabs, will preclude any kind of Euro-style mass disarmament. Disarming legally armed Americans would be just as daunting a bureaucratic and executive task as deporting all illegal immigants, which is the reason I know we won't do either.

It seems to me that the main political goal of the current gun mania is to nip at the heels of the gun lobby in order to satisfy a few interest groups and give off the illusion of big, powerful government action. Banning the AR-15 "assault rifle" won't move the needle one micrometer on gun murders in this country at all, but that was never the point. I don't doubt there are sincere Democrats who believe that it will, but I think that's because they cling to certain unexamined, false premises, and because they often let their emotions overpower logic when it comes to policy.

I can't speak to Europe's political situation, when it comes to guns. I know that their gun laws vary from country to country, but their larger continental problem seems to be linked more closely to all those big bets they made on post-war communal entitlements, without regard to the individuals whose personal ambitions and work ethics make those entitlements possible. It's hard for freedom to flower when the dreams of the current generation are yoked to the debts and excesses of the previous one.

(OTOH, I think that Europe's Sick Man is swiftly becoming America's, these days, so I've been paying much closer attention to their woes in recent years.)

[lostboy-lj.livejournal.com]

The other thing in the article I'm not too keen on is this "Homo Cathodicus" proposition itself (and not just because the cathode-ray tube is quickly becoming obsolete :P).

The way I see it, he's using the standard tricks and gimmicks of postmodernism in an attempt to criticize... postmodernism. One of the chief failings of the postmodernists (and why I think they largely identify with the Left politically) is the tendency among them to believe that human nature is a fully malleable thing. At times, the author almost seems to be making that nutjob Jean Baudrillard's case for him, with his "real versus 'real'" analogy. I think Mark Steyn made much the same case here and here, more effectively without having to pretend that the postmodernists were right. Instead, he treats the people who openly believe in the postmodern "flexibility" of truth and human nature with what they deserve: gleeful scorn.

"Homo Cathodicus" doesn't really exist. Native to an understanding of consensus reality is the belief that everyone *actually lives there*, despite what various people might foolishly speculate out loud. We all need food in our bellies and roofs over our heads. Beyond that we seek out things like love, friendship, sex, attention, esteem, comfort, fellowship, entertainment, etc. The order we prioritize these varies from person to person, and how it all figures into our political calculations can be very complex. But this notion that half the country is now living in a constructed alternate reality is something I'd expect out of a co-chair of the Semiotics department at the local liberal arts college, not a "conservative" writer.

People may have made the wrong decision in the last election, but it was largely because they are inundated with bad information and frightening propaganda, not because they think Jacques Derrida was just the coolest dude ever.