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 is arrogant to assume a priori that whoever disagrees with you is wrong. That is sophistry - which literally means "wisdom" - as opposed to philosophy, which literally means the love of wisdom. If you claim only to love wisdom, you are open to reason and to changing your mind if the facts and logic of the case warrant it. If you claim to be wise, why then there is nothing to talk about - everyone else should just shut up and listen to you. Or as the Lysenkoists say about anthropogenic global warming, "The case is closed."
And I think the left was not too worried under Reagan because they thought they controlled the media - at the time they did - but Reagan talked beyond them, directly to us. Imagine if under a President Bush we did not have the internet, talk radio, or a FNC. Bush would be relegated to Ford status. And if you think the left is bonkers now, wait till Fred Thompson gets in the race. Just the short F-U response to Michael Moore today should be enough to drive them nuts. He will be the effective communicator we desperately need.
ping
However, the "communism" I was discussing was not the kind found in small, rural communal colonies. The Amish, Hutterites and the like, keep to themselves and do not attempt to force their ideology on others. The same cannot be said for communism.
Revolutionary Marxian socialism or Marxist-Leninist communism is a very different beast from the examples you have given.
I assumed that would be clear in my post. Apparently it wasn't.
Yes, that is one big difference. Coercion is the problem, not that Christian churches have not engaged in the practice (the Inquisition).
But even when it is voluntary such as the kibbutz movement in Israel or the Jamestown colony, it is hard to get it right.
I think it is very important to study communal societies because under some circumstances such as new colonies with minimal populations in remote places (like Mars perhaps), it may be what needs to be done.
Notice that you very seldom see leftists pointing to Hutterites as an example of successful communism. They just can't bring themselves to admit that dedicated Christians can succeed where atheists fail.
Thanks for an even more excellent post!
Anyway, I gotta go. On another thread, FastCoyote is caught in a whirlpool of doubletalk and is using his miracle underwear to get out of it, while God-Guy laughs at his predicament from the planet of Kolob. I just gotta see how this turns out!
Kinda reminds you of Islam, doesn't it?
Our public school system continues to create and perpetuate people with just this mind set. Why do you think the NEA and other teachers unions always endorse Democrats?
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.