Liberals

General observations about the U.S.

by asmwizard

A quick recap: America’s government began in revolution against the British king.  The colonies had to cooperate in order to field an army of rebels, and they did so by means of the Continental Congress.

Following the revolution, it seemed logical for the various colonies to form a confederation, and the United States of America was born with the United States Constitution, adopted September 17, 1787.  The Constitution set up a division of power with three supposedly co-equal branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial.  We have a representative democracy, in which the states elect senators and representatives – the people are not allowed to vote directly on any issue.  This system worked well, for the most part, and not counting the contentious times around the Civil War, until about the year 1992, when Congress and the President began to be at odds.  The first government shutdowns occurred under Bill Clinton in 1995 and 1996.  The attempt to impeach Clinton probably began the great increasing trend in polarization between the parties, no doubt intensified by the Bush-Gore election and the second war with Iraq.  Hard feelings between parties continued to grow until we have today’s situation.

In my opinion, the equality of power between the three branches of government has seriously deteriorated since Clinton’s time.  The three branches are no longer co-equal.  The executive branch has become dominant.  What we have now is almost a dictatorship.  The president fails to enforce whatever laws he doesn’t like.  He stonewalls investigations into improprieties in his administration.  He issues Executive Orders to change the laws and regulations without consulting Congress.  The House is likely to investigate his action to extend the timeline for corporations to adopt Obamacare requirements, which they consider extra-legal; he did it without authority. 

The Attorney General and various other officials have managed to totally flout Congress.  The House seemingly has no power to enforce cooperation in its various investigations into misconduct by government agencies.  A Contempt of Congress citation against Eric Holder is meaningless until he leaves office, since he won’t prosecute himself.  Even afterward, a Democrat in the office may refuse to initiate proceedings. 

The Supreme Court often votes along strict party lines. One might think law is different for the two parties.  There are also two ways of looking at the Constitution, apparently.  Democrats seem to believe big government should be able to totally ignore it.  Republicans like to think there are some things the Federal government should leave to the states.  Almost certainly, Obama will be able to give liberals the majority within his last three years of office.

State’s rights don’t seem to mean much now.  States receive so much money from the Federal government that they almost have to go along, even if they aren’t mandated to cooperate. 

The Federal government has become a giant money collector, borrower, and distributor.  Politicians spend a million dollars the way an ordinary citizen would a nickel.  A billion dollars is like a twenty to Congress and the President.  But, when you spend a few billion here, and a few billion there, they add up.  A thousand billion dollars is a trillion, and our Federal debt is about 17 of them.   We have the most wasteful president in history, and the government agencies he is supposed to manage seem to think they can do anything whatever with government money, including having lots of parties.  After all, there’s an endless supply of it.

Being elected to the House or Senate is like winning the lottery, and most politicians think only of their re-election.  They pander to the voters and support huge giveaways to them.  They vote themselves high salaries and great benefits, including retirement.  Many become old in their job.  Proposed amendments to the Constitution to impose term limits and make Congress members have to follow the same laws as everyone else don’t seem to be going anywhere.  At this moment, many members of Congress are trying to exempt themselves from the Obamacare regulations for their own offices.  There are a few good public servants in the group of 500+, but good ones who follow conservative principles are rare.

The majority of the electorate is either totally self-serving, uninformed, or stupid, in my opinion.  After all, they re-elected Obama after four years of miserable performance.  They allowed Democrats to retain control of the Senate in 2010.  Nevada re-elected Harry Reid. 

Overall, the Federal government is ineffective.  They haven’t agreed on a budget since 2007.  The party in power takes no interest in cutting back spending or addressing the deficit and debt.  The Congress can’t get needed reforms done, or even agree on what is needed. Incompetence is rampant in the State Department and the IRS.  Legislation, totally dominated by Democrats since 2008, has been immensely overcomplicated.  Obamacare was voted into law by Democrats who never read the bill – no human could read and understand it in less than a month.  No one knows who wrote the bill of more than 2000 pages.  It’s an immense social experiment and no one knows how our medical care will be affected by it.

Barack Obama came to the office without any significant accomplishment and was totally unqualified.  He’s intelligent and well-spoken, but – his is a weird personality.  He doesn’t lead, never proposes detail. He controls everything but is responsible for nothing. He just tells Congress he wants legislation of a certain kind, and leaves it to them – knowing that the Congress is divided and incompetent, and can’t agree on anything.  He apparently despises conservatives and never listens to Republican suggestions.  He spends most of his time campaigning, fund-raising, traveling to make unneeded speeches on the public budget and visiting foreign countries for no apparent reason. I have never figured out whether he’s incompetent or is deliberately trying to wreck the economy, but the effect is the same. 

About the time the Roman Empire collapsed, I imagine some people were saying similar things about their leadership.

As I have often said, I’m not totally satisfied with our present administration, but of course you’d never figure that out from what I’ve written here.

Who holds the moral high ground?

by asmwizard

As published in The Leavenworth Times, April 3, 2012.

Liberals routinely claim the moral high ground.  They believe government should directly help the poor and other groups of victims, and assert that conservatives just want to make things better for the rich.  An air of superiority permeates the demeanor of many university professors, wealthy movie stars, and cable network personalities.  For them, there is no debate: they are morally superior.  To that end, they push for ever bigger, more intrusive government.  That has a feedback effect: the more people depending on big government, the more downtrodden to vote for Democrats to continue it, and the more superior they feel.

But are they more moral, as a group, than conservatives? Should we hold them up as models of morality? First, a disclaimer – politicians of all stripes are often corrupt and self-serving, but let’s ignore that and just assume liberals and conservatives act for what they believe is the greater good, not just for themselves.

First of all, liberals reside on the left of the big-to-smaller-government spectrum, as well as the left of the government-power-to-personal-freedom spectrum. They always push for bigger, more powerful government – with more regulations, more taxes, and less freedom for the individual.  Point for conservatives.

Liberals want government to decide who is poor, keep raising the poverty line, and do all they can to keep government largesse flowing to them, rather than improve their overall circumstances. They don’t really want the poor to help themselves. They have allowed nearly half of the public to get away with paying no taxes whatever.  In effect, they attempt to make many voters dependent on government money.  Conservatives want to make it possible for people to help themselves.

Liberals aren’t fiscally responsible.  They’ve grown the deficit and the public debt under Obama, and despite holding all power for two years, have made no move to reform anything.  They’ve run the government on continuing resolutions, never daring to produce a budget which might have to cut a government program.

Leftists are notorious for dishonesty.  They believe the end justifies any means.  Liberals dance dangerously close to that attitude.  For example, liberal journalists and TV personalities routinely pretend to be objective while pushing the liberal agenda.  This is hypocrisy. 

LIberals consistently attack family values, such as traditional marriage and religious freedom. They have asserted rights that never existed before, and imposed them on the majority.

Liberals have no compunction in using mobs to enforce their minority will on the majority.  The huge, organized demonstrations in Wisconsin are an example; the various Occupy movements are another.  Mob action is the opposite of rational discourse and democratic process.  Conservative movements like the Tea Party have behaved properly, and have never used mob action to try to enforce their will.

Liberals seem to hate capitalism.  They want totally regulated economy.  Never mind that such has never worked – even Russia and China have had to back away from it.  Vigorous capitalist economies have done more to raise the standard of living than anything else, particularly in America.  But Liberals still fight it.

From all of the above, and much more, conservatives in general really hold the moral high ground.  The Obama administration proves that.  Obama flaunts the will of the majority – mostly conservatives who want smaller, simpler, less intrusive government, personal freedom and responsibility, and a lawful society.  He has increased government power: ignoring congress on many issues, increasing government size, allowing the debt to grow more than all previous presidents combined, taking over health care, spending ever more, refusing to even consider entitlement reform (while saying he is interested in doing so), pushing irrational energy ideas, and on and on.   

He does all that with an arrogant, confident air.  But you can’t blame him: he’s a liberal, therefore he believes he is morally superior.  He’s wrong.  

 

   

 

 



Political spectra . . .

by asmwizard

As published in the Leavenworth Times, January 3, 2011.  The title was, “Moderate may be worst of all.”  (not my title)

A recent letter in the Times referred to “right-wing kooks”.  This was written by a left-wing kook, but it got me thinking: what, exactly, is a right-wing kook?  What is a left-winger?  I thought about the spectra (spectrums? spectrumses?) that exist in political thought.  It isn’t as simple as liberal/conservative.

I would arrange the parties from left to right as: communist, Alinsky radical, socialist, progressive/liberal, moderate, establishment conservative, conservative, libertarian, and anarchist.  Communists want government to have total control of property, people, and the economy. The government is the Party, which has all power.  Party members are more equal than ordinary citizens, who have no rights or privileges not granted by the government.  It’s as though every citizen is in the army. 

In the communist philosophy of Karl Marx, communists come to power through violent revolution, with deception and cheating as key tools.  Ethics aren’t important.  Saul Alinksy, an American leftist, refined the idea to say that violence wasn’t necessary to achieve the revolution, deception and cheating would work just fine.  It is alleged that Barak Obama is a disciple.  He worked in Chicago for an organization founded by Alinsky.

Socialist governments own all businesses, may grant some privileges to citizens, such as home or farm ownership.  They provide cradle-to-grave income and health care for all citizens, with correspondingly high taxes and lack of personal freedom.

Liberals generally agree with pulling the country toward socialism.  They favor big government, strive to provide cradle-to-grave security for “the poor” and want to tax the hell out of those who actually work.  They favor control of business through many regulations, believing that they and their appointed bureaucrats are smarter than the economic forces.  They are also known as progressives. 

Moderates are confused, ignorant, and/or apathetic, and don’t know what to believe.  Gullible souls, they generally decide how to vote based on personal appearance, catchy slogans such as “Hope and Change”, or 30-second TV sound bites.  Bless their hearts.

Establishment conservatives are often RINOs – Republicans in name only.  Typically, their views are a mix of moderate, conservative, and sometimes even liberal ideas.  They are often career politicians or TV pundits.  They fear real conservatives.  John McCain is their patron saint, and Mitt Romney is about to be anointed. 

Conservatives favor individual freedom and the responsibility that goes with it.  They want government to stay out of the way with fewer laws and regulations.  They want government to be efficient, as small as possible while still able to provide essential services.  Think Tea Party.  This is the main-stream group in the country and in the Republican Party.  There are more conservatives than liberals in the United States.

Libertarians are the true extreme of the right.  They want no laws regulating personal behavior, but grudgingly allow felony laws, and police.  Most would  repeal laws against illegal drugs or prostitution. 

Anarchists want no government at all.  If such was practical, you’d see many more of them.  By definition, they are insane, as are many libertarians.

So, a “right-wing kook” would have to be a libertarian or an anarchist.  A “left-wing kook” would be communist or socialist.

Another spectrum — slave state to personal freedom — matches the political spectrum.  Communists states enslave their populations.  So far, the United States hasn’t. 

Another: theocracy (total control of living through enforced religion), something in between, and freedom of religion.  This matches the political spectrum, so I would call Iran’s government leftist and akin to communism. 

Hitler’s Nazi government was a socialist dictatorship.  Please, stop associating conservatives with Hitler.

If I could stop thinking, I’d happily be moderate.  But knowing what the left intends, I’ll try to stay to the right of them.

Liberals and Conservatives

by asmwizard

 

 

 

 

 

 

(As published in the Leavenworth Times, June, 2011)

Is it possible to be objective when describing the two parties as to how they operate, and how they are motivated? Can they be sketched in a few words? Let me try.

 

Democrats (Liberals) focus around the poor, the underprivileged, and the downtrodden – society’s victims. They want as many as possible of such people, and they want the government to help them, even support them. Because they help, they believe they have the moral high ground. The party includes labor unions, for which Democrats pass legislation that gives them advantages over their employers. They also help pro-choice women, minorities, illegal immigrants, drug users, and homosexuals by advocating their “rights” and striving to pass legislation to obtain those rights. They want the federal government to support the “poor” financially and try to obtain free health care, food, housing, and retirement for them. Of course, the more victims who vote, the more the Democrats ensure their power.

Big government implies a lot of federal employees, who also vote. Democrats favor that.

Where there are victims, there must be demons – those who hurt the victims. Democrats are forever demonizing people, businesses, and institutions. Among the demons are white people, businesses (the bigger, the more evil), capitalism, the wealthy, and conservatives.

Democrats are micro-managers — they don’t like businesses, and try to regulate them to death. They believe they are smarter than anyone else, including management of the businesses, and imagine they can use regulations to obtain a perfect outcome. They often encounter unintended consequences.

Democrats are dependent on the income redistribution model of government. Like modern day Robin Hoods, they take from the rich and give to the poor. There are many more poor than rich, which skews the vote toward the poor. The process breaks down somewhat when there aren’t enough rich people, or when rich people find ways to evade paying taxes. Lack of federal income doesn’t stop the Democrats – they just raise taxes on businesses, borrow money, or print it.

Republicans (Conservatives) want a smooth-running, capitalist economy. They know a strong economy guarantees high employment and brings in federal revenue. They believe in minimum interference from the federal government, with taxes – personal and business) as low as possible. They expect the federal government to provide a strong national defense. They want government finances to be managed properly. While they believe in a social safety net, they want as few people using it as possible. They admire traditional, Christian, family values. Marriage is sacred to them, and most don’t like abortions unless medically necessary. They begrudge “rights” for homosexuals, illegal immigrants, and drug users. They believe in individual responsibility, and want the “victims” to get off their couches and become useful members of society – earning their own way. They aren’t quite as sympathetic to minorities. They want labor/management rules to be balanced, and they don’t like having people forced to join unions in order to work. Conservatives claim the moral high ground because they want everything to work right and everyone to be a good, responsible citizen.

Republicans believe in smaller government, with fewer federal employees.

Republicans tend to demonize those who violate the law or ethical or moral rules. They abhor liberalism and the Left.

Republicans believe in the “Laissez Faire” (let it alone) approach to the economy. They like to give businesses free reign where possible, with few regulations and low taxes and tariffs. They want the wealthy to be taxed fairly. They mistrust bureaucrats to control anything intelligently.

Republicans want to cut the national debt, reduce the annual deficit in revenue to a balanced budget, and tax individuals and businesses only as much as is necessary. To them, income redistribution should be minimized.

Republicans hope to obtain their votes from intelligent, “right-thinking” people who believe in capitalism and personal prosperity. Sometimes such people are in short supply. Republican politicians are human, however, and often support subsidies and block grants – buying votes in the process.

Independents (Moderates) are confused by all this and go one way, then the other. Actually, most people are confused by all this. Many Republicans don’t fully understand conservative principles – study George W. Bush and John McCain as examples. Rarely, a Democrat has a lucid moment and (temporarily) believes in fiscal responsibility. They may also pretend to believe in it during election campaigns.

In summary, Republicans think our country is on the road to disaster, while Democrats wonder “What’s the problem?”. That’s why they never reach a consensus.