Posted on 05/14/2007 9:09:51 PM PDT by jazusamo
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
That people on the political left have a certain set of opinions, just as people do in other parts of the ideological spectrum, is not surprising. What is surprising, however, is how often the opinions of those on the left are accompanied by hostility and even hatred.
Particular issues can arouse passions here and there for anyone with any political views. But, for many on the left, indignation is not a sometime thing. It is a way of life.
How often have you seen conservatives or libertarians take to the streets, shouting angry slogans? How often have conservative students on campus shouted down a visiting speaker or rioted to prevent the visitor from speaking at all?
The source of the anger of liberals, "progressives" or radicals is by no means readily apparent. The targets of their anger have included people who are non-confrontational or even genial, such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
It is hard to think of a time when Karl Rove or Dick Cheney has even raised his voice but they are hated like the devil incarnate.
There doesn't even have to be any identifiable individual to arouse the ire of the left. "Tax cuts for the rich" is more than a political slogan. It is incitement to anger.
All sorts of people can have all sorts of beliefs about what tax rates are best from various points of view. But how can people work themselves into a lather over the fact that some taxpayers are able to keep more of the money they earned, instead of turning it over to politicians to dispense in ways calculated to get themselves re-elected?
The angry left has no time to spend even considering the argument that what they call "tax cuts for the rich" are in fact tax cuts for the economy.
Nor is the idea new that tax cuts can sometimes spur economic growth, resulting in more jobs for workers and higher earnings for business, leading to more tax revenue for the government.
A highly regarded economist once observed that "taxation may be so high as to defeat its object," so that sometimes "a reduction of taxation will run a better chance, than an increase, of balancing the Budget."
Who said that? Milton Friedman? Arthur Laffer? No. It was said in 1933 by John Maynard Keynes, a liberal icon.
Lower tax rates have led to higher tax revenues many times, both before and since Keynes' statement -- the Kennedy tax cuts in the 1960s, the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980s, and the recent Bush tax cuts that have led to record high tax revenues this April.
Budget deficits have often resulted from runaway spending but seldom from reduced tax rates.
Those on the other side may have different arguments. However, the question here is not why the left has different arguments, but why there is such anger.
Often it is an exercise in futility even to seek to find a principle behind the anger. For example, the left's obsession with the high incomes of corporate executives never seems to extend to equally high -- or higher -- incomes of professional athletes, entertainers, or best-selling authors like Danielle Steel.
If the reason for the anger is a feeling that corporate CEOs are overpaid for their contributions, then there should be even more anger at people who get even more money for doing absolutely nothing, because they have inherited fortunes.
Yet how often has the left gotten worked up into high dudgeon over those who inherited the Rockefeller, Roosevelt or Kennedy fortunes? Even spoiled heirs like Paris Hilton don't really seem to set them off.
If it is hard to find a principle behind what angers the left, it is not equally hard to find an attitude.
Their greatest anger seems to be directed at people and things that thwart or undermine the social vision of the left, the political melodrama starring the left as saviors of the poor, the environment, and other busybody tasks that they have taken on.
It seems to be the threat to their egos that they hate. And nothing is more of a threat to their desire to run other people's lives than the free market and its defenders.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.
It’s called FACISM.
The left became mighty pissed off at Reagan, simmered while the Republicans went after their guy for lying on the stand and tried to claim it was about sex, went completely off the deep end when their guy didn’t win the 200 election and then went nucking futs when they didn’t beat Bush in 2004.
Entitlement to elections is their MO
bump
correct. If you give the left in this country the power that Hitler or Stalin, they would make them look like amateurs. The left is consumed with power. They are determined to impose a totalitairian dictatorship. It is looking more and more than 2008 will be election to decide the fate of this Republic. If the left wins, the US will cease to be a Republic. God help us if Hillary wins.
good points, but I think their goals very sinister. Much of their efforts are funded by the most evil human alive on Earth today-- Soros. If the DemoRats had following choices 1) Hillary for President, or 2)Hillary as dictator for life, which would they choose? Without a doubt, 2. The evil left hates Liberty and Capitalism.
I think that I sort of understand where all the anger of the left comes from...
Something that I’ve observed over the years is that conservatives look upon the “rank and file” of the left as well meaning, but misdirected people who want good things to happen, but are going about it the wrong way...
On the other hand, the left typically look at themselves as people who only want the best for others: Who are trying to make changes in society to make the world a better place for everyone. Who are simply trying to do good. And they see conservatives as people who are putting up road blocks as far as getting those changes enacted.
It’s a very short step in seeing conservatives as not just seeing things a different way, but in opposing what the left wants, they’re opposing that which is good, hence conservatives are bad, or even evil.
And it doesn’t help when they get beaten when their ideas are put up for votes (they think either that the vote was rigged, or “the masses” simply don’t know what’s good for them), or their plans wind up screwing things up worse than they were before (those damned conservatives didn’t let us implement it completely, or the wrong people tried implementing it)... Either of these adds to their anger...
Mark
leftists do not think, they emote.
they judge everything by appearances, not by facts.
except it’s fascism with an “s.”
LOL, you are correct...
Normally, I don’t correct misspellings, but fascism is such an important word when it comes to leftist totalitarianism. I’ve been plugging it in as a keyword a lot lately - as in ecofascism. :)
>leftists do not think, they emote. they judge everything by appearances, not by facts.<
By George, I think you’ve got it! Seems as though we have a few of those among us on FR, too.
If lower taxes result in greater revenues for government, why do big-government liberals oppose tax cuts?
They answer is that taxes weaken the economy and inflict pain on business. By promising selective tax relief, a politician can extort campaign contributions or support for dubious projects.
A weak economy is useful if it can be blamed on the other party. If the opposing party is in the White House, they get the blame.
They remind me of a very spoiled brat that gets enraged when someone older and wiser points out one of their mistakes or tries to offer a suggestion to prevent another mistake.
It isn’t the conservative choices that bush makes that enrages them. It is the fact that conservativism exists in the first place that enrages them. It is the fact that when conservatism acheives and produces, it is proof of liberalism’s lies. That’s what enrages them.
Many of the lefties I talk to (not always willingly or welcomed)get into spitting fits over the so-called right wing religious zealots who ‘want to make everybody worship God’ (capitalization mine, of course!), and of course they hate it that President Bush is a Christian.
Funny, you’d think the aim of the muzzies, to put us all under Sharia law, would get to them in the same way, but it doesn’t!
Spell check is very useful.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
And add into that womens rights and gay rights, there’s no such thing under Sharia law and those are big points with lefties.
Liberals are almost always bitter, hate-Filled little people ....
Think about the Liberals YOU know....
Short, fat, ugly people of questionable sexuality, enraged at the world for some percieved slight or insult, like the non-acceptance of gays, thier tiny schlong, or they were beaten by the jocks in high school while the pretty girls laughed....
That rage translates into borderline insanity, and a desire to be confrontational to everything, without regard for whatever damage it might do.
They hate the boss, they hate the landlord, they hate the cop that stopped them from trolling for boys in the park, etc,etc...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.