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.
Who said that? Milton Friedman? Arthur Laffer? No. It was said in 1933 by John Maynard Keynes, a liberal icon.
Holy ****! I didn't know Keynes ever said that!
I think you nailed the time frame. The left is angry because they placed their hopes on an extremely flawed person, Bill Clinton. This forced them to defend the indefensible. When the Republicans impeached Clinton, the left swore an oath to get even. What we see today is their rabid quest for vengance. They have been trying eveything they can to bring down Bush. That is their only goal today and it shows.
The hangover from the Clinton era does play a part, to be sure....but there is more to it than that.
It almost seems the Leftwingnuts blame Bush for requiring them to address the fact 20 - 40 million Muslims have been trained via the Modrass system to hate us, and to kill us whenever they can. The liberals seem angry they can’t ignore this, as the Clinton administration did throughout the 1990’s.
Actually, it’s called FASCISM.
Facism, I guess, is being biased against certain facial types.
The Lefties planned Utopias do not allow you to opt out. Except at high risk. (See: climbing over Berlin wall, building a raft to get out of Cuba, boat people and Viet Nam.) And truly, these escape routes are only due to circumstances, the true Leftist Utopia will be inescapable. Except through death.
Unless you’re talking about prejudice based on “faces” - that would be facism...
Because it's about control and vengeance against those they perceive as having it better than they do.
I guess if you keep pulling the loose thread, the “Hate America” crowd was really sent into a tizzy when Mr. Reagan won a landside with an optimistic view of the future and a plan to get there. Jimmy Carter was the embodiment of their ideologies and clearly showed what a failure they were. Reagan easily showed the idiocy of the left’s policies and turned things around using the tools they dispise most. Faith in the common man, free markets, and low taxes.
Excellent post...There's no better example of your above statement than the behavior of Reid, Pelosi and many other elected dems just since the '06 election.
I had a friend LEAP at me from the couch at our Christmas party when I said that I was all for the death penalty (and I thot the Texas Fast-Track was the best of the best). “You want to KILL people?” It was a small leap, as he has MS, but still.
Almost all are born into the lifestyle. It would be very difficult for one of us to convert to such an austere lifestyle.
But like you say, they are free to leave and some of them do. In fact, they have to leave because they have so many children that the colonies become overpopulated and they need to "branch off" and form a new colony. Even so, keeping their people from defecting to the outside world is one of the concerns of all Anabaptists. Fifty years ago, the Amish had half their children leave. Today it is about ten percent.
When people are free to leave, the competition with other lifestyles gives the community leaders incentive to treat everyone fairly.
The only thing that shut up the Leftwingnuts daily rants was Reagan’s funeral, which took them all by surprise at how the entire nation mourned.
They still don’t understand ‘why’ that happened.
Thanks. I have my moments....(chuckle)
great article !
I was reading Anne Lamott’s latest book. She is so funny, altho this one was mixed with vile anti-Bush stuff. She said something to the effect of — “If I stay angry, then Bush will not have won.” Something like that.
Anger is a way of FEELING powerful when you have no power, and it is effective in making others think you are powerful, even if you are NOT. Of course, you could also just get on with YOUR life. They won’t, of course.
But if you can get your way by being angry it does give you power. I once worked for a company that would defer to the department chief who was the most angry in meetings. It's called "glandular management".
When you substitute emotion for reason, it all makes perfect sense.
Exactly!...Of course that's what rational people do but the vast majority of these type people are not rational.
Oh, I don't know about that. I often feel hostility and hatred towards liberals.
That's exactly what they do, combined with only hearing one side of the argument through the MSM...
For instance, my step-mother states quite simply that "Bush is a total moron." When I confront her with the possibility that he's not, but that he's not a good public speaker, given the fact that he's got an MBA from Harvard and was a fighter pilot who flew jets (I've never heard of a "dumb" fighter jock, especially in jets). It doesn't matter. I've got other relatives who consistantly disagree with the platform of the dems, and refuse to believe it when I quote them, yet they still support the dems.
Mark
I would go with uninformed. I was at the peace rally in DC on the 27th of January. I spent the latter third of the "march" holding a sign that said "Code Pink Supports Terror". There were an amazing number of people who asked "Who/What is Code Pink?"
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.