Attacking Liberalism/socialism

Why do people vote for democrats? That question has plagued conservatives for nearly three decades. The answer is complex and requires more than an 800-1000 word article. Therefore, this problem must be attacked on three fronts: economic, political, social. All of these will require in-depth analysis.

However, an over-arching theme can be introduced which explains why hardcore liberals and apolitical America actually pull the “D” lever of the ballot box. True liberals are well-meaning people of good intentions. Many are smart, capable, and generous intellects that serve their particular field well. However, they are clueless as to how to do this on a macroeconomic scale. They want to help humans without understanding that the electron rotates around the nucleus.

Many liberals are sympathetic to progressive causes. Some of which are noble. No one will argue that the fight for civil rights was an evil. (Right now a handful of hardcore liberals just passed out in response to that idea). However, a majority of liberals fail to understand that there is a cost to every action. There is a problem in health care? Why that means we must nationalize the industry. Some poor woman just had twins? That must mean that abortion is the only solution. These among many others show that liberals think with their heart, not their brain. They “feel” for the plights of many people without “thinking” through the proper solutions. Because of this, they do not recognize that many times, the costs to their actions far outweigh their benefit.

Ask a liberal who Karl Marx is and they will recite the communist manifesto word for word. Ask a liberal who Franklin Delano Roosevelt was and they will respond that he saved America from the plights of laizze-faire capitalism. However, ask a liberal who Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig Von Mises, William F. Buckley, C.S. Lewis, and Thomas Jefferson were and they will respond with one of three responses. “Who”? “Oh, wasn’t he a part of Hitler’s SS?” or “Yeah, that guy who owned slaves.” In other words, they are absolutely clueless as to who, what, where, why, and when conservative thought is.

There are several reasons for this. One, they were never taught correctly. Perusing through Barnes & Noble, I came across a book on the history of economic thought. The book dealt heavily in the thoughts of John Maynard Keynes and Paul Samuelson: both respected liberal economists. But they virtually ignored every major conservative economist of the 20th century except for Milton Friedman (who was mentioned in the appendix). If one only hears the consistent drumming of the political left, they tend to believe it.

Second is that they don’t want to use their brains. This small minority is perfectly content on living in their respective “me” centered world. They have taken their HS101 class and understand well enough the faults of capitalism and the true nature of that imperial country America. They don’t want to hear the other side. Institutions like organized religion, economics, moral absolutism, and conservative thinkers only brainwash. Meanwhile when they hear someone on the television that opposes the income tax or is against abortion, they think that extreme.

Finally, it is much easier today to be a liberal. Liberal thinkers own the mainstream media, college campuses, and many other institutions. They are hailed as open minded, fair, and compassionate. Meanwhile the evil economics department and the one teacher who gave that one kid a C in that humanities class are considered close-minded and hard.

All of this is unfortunate because liberalism, or more aptly socialism, has been the root cause of every major problem fathomable since its inception. All of it begins with a complete misunderstanding of economics. But, as Aristotle said, that’s another story for another day.

True liberals are well-meaning people of good intentions. Many are smart, capable, and generous intellects that serve their particular field well. However, they are clueless as to how to do this on a macroeconomic scale.

This is probably true of the rank and file liberal. I believe it was true of my own father who was a Roosevelt Democrat (god forgive him). But I don’t believe this is true of those in leadership positions. These people I believe are only interested in the furtherance of their own influence and power. These people seek power for its own sake and the expansion of government is the surest path to power for these would be megalomaniacs

But perhaps you would not describe these power seekers as true Liberals.

The road to hell?

Many are smart, capable, and generous intellects that serve their particular field well. However, they are clueless as to how to do this on a macroeconomic scale. They want to help humans without understanding that the electron rotates around the nucleus.

I would offer that many, especially the "leaders", understand exactly what it is they wish to accomplish and how to accomplish it. And helping humans is not it.

Many liberals are sympathetic to progressive causes. Some of which are noble. No one will argue that the fight for civil rights was an evil.

Some will, but not many care to listen to them. Civil rights: equal protection under the law - good. Civil rights: government enforced racial quotas - evil. If they wish to use their time and money to support "noble progressive" causes, fine and dandy. To FORCE me to go along with whatever scheme they can cook up, very bad.

However, a majority of liberals fail to understand that there is a cost to every action. There is a problem in health care? Why that means we must nationalize the industry. Some poor woman just had twins? That must mean that abortion is the only solution. These among many others show that liberals think with their heart, not their brain. They “feel” for the plights of many people without “thinking” through the proper solutions. Because of this, they do not recognize that many times, the costs to their actions far outweigh their benefit.

The majority fail to understand, the minority don't. They (the minority) understand fully what they are doing and why and convince the rest of the "rightness" of their cause. Do we know what they are doing and why?

Paul Wellestone is a good and honorable man. I've met him twice and though I don't agree with him, I can't condemn him as a power-monger.

The Devil will assume a comely form the better to deceive.

It is difficult to judge a man’s character in two meetings. And politicians by their very nature are good at being all things to all people.

I stand by my previous post. Anyone who believes it is good and proper to use government to forcibly redistribute wealth is not fit to be in a position of power and is morally corrupt.

It was an exaggeration to prove a point. jeeeez!

What I was trying to paraphrase was socialists/liberals will play their class warfare game, decry the faults of capitalism ( while simultaneousely understanding its benefits), and in actually speak the principles laid out by the communist manifesto

Most conservatives will recite for you pretty much the principles of edmund burke, friedrich hayek, and thomas jefferson. They dont actually have to quote them. But at least these conservatives have a clue as to what the liberal/socialist arguement is. MANY on that side DO NOT

You have to make the distiction between mainstream conservative economics, which is still largely Keyensian, and the departures of the Austrian and Chicago Shools of Economics (Hayek and Friedman, respectively). Milton Friedman's monetarism was implemented twice on a large scale, in Chile and Britain during the eighties, and both times his overall economic philosophy failed rather miserably. Keyensianism is still in practice not because of some grand liberal plot to keep the glory of anarcho-capitalism from attaining a fantasyland-type economic structure, but because it has actually worked. The United States hasn't had a depression in over sixty years because of Keyensian policies implemented by the Fed.

I disagree. At least you know what you are fighting for though. Thatcherism and moneterism both suceeded in the the 1980's and there was a major large-scale depression thanks to keynesianism during the 1970's. There phillips curve, upon which the assumption was made that there was a tradeoff between inflation and unemployment broke down with the advent of stagflation. Nothing in the Keynesian model could explain this phenomena.

But I am by no means an anarcho-capitalist. I am not an austrian economist by any means. I lean towards supply-side/public choice anaylsis. I believe that the government cannot fine tune the economy the way Keynes proposed because 1) politicians are not all economists and dont necessary know what they are doing and 2) politicians act out of their own self interests. Government spending increases no matter what during election seasons thanks to the self-interest of politicians. It doesnt matter that there is too much inflation.

Take Richard Nixon for example. His appointed fed chairmen, his name slips me, was a moneterist and believed in a strict 3-5% growth of the money supply. But during the 1972 elections, the money supply grew well over 10%. In his autobiography, he says that "I wanted to keep my job and get re-appointed." Nixon wanted more inflation (which was the opposite of what was needed) and he got it.

I do not believe Reagan was a Keynesian by any means. A Keynesian would have solved the 1970's econonic crises through temporary tax relief and an INCREASED money supply to lower the unemployment rate. However, the fed adopted a tight money supply (as argued by Friedman) and lowered taxes. Inflation fell during the 1980's and yet unemployment decreased.

The 1990's shows a further departure from Keynesianism thanks to the republican takeover in 1994. The budget was balanced and capital gains taxes were lowered. A Keynesian may have been for the balanced budget (possibly), but certainly not for the capital gains taxes because they would have argued that the economy was in an expansion and no tax cuts were needed.

Keynesianisn is a highly flawed school of economics.

Here are some articles refuting that Britains economy was in the crapper thanks to Thatcher

http://www.cato.org/current/argentina/pubs/hanke-000918.html

This is not on moneterism/thatcherism per se. But this is about economic freedom in relation to prosperity

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj17n2-1.html

This is a great article by heritage outlining 3 different categories of economics. Keynesianism is explained and attacked. Remember..Japan has practiced textbook Keynesianism and they are in deep financial trouble (as the article points out

http://www.heritage.org/shorts/2001106economics.html

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.