Why I would like to support Barack Obama
September 27th, 2008 by sepierce and tagged Abortion, Greed, Obama, Sloth, TaxesI wish I could support Barack Obama in this election season. The reason for this wish is relatively simple, convenience.
Imagine how much easier life would be if you possessed the loose grasp on reality that would allow you to support Barack Obama. Imagine how simple your daily life would be if you cared only for yourself and viewed the rest of the world in terms of what it could give you. Imagine the liberating sense of being moral-free, as one might need to be in order to support Barack Obama. Imagine what a relief it would be to not care about the march toward an Orwellian vision of society as would be expedited by Barack Obama.
I’ve long thought that to be a liberal, one must be evil, stupid, or a combination of the two. The Obama candidacy and terrifying level of mindless support he enjoys serves to reinforce my original beliefs. Some poor souls actually believe that Obammunism would be a good thing for the common citizens of this nation. Some hope to enjoy power and control over the common citizens under Obammunism. Others don’t care enough to be informed.
Think about the mental state of the Obamoron that cheers when he “y’ohs” (his contraction of “you know”) about the tax breaks to the wealthy and the redistribution of “windfall profits” to “American families.” It must be nice to have such a narrow view of the horizon that one could support such a notion. A thinking person would realize that penalizing producers and employers will reduce production and employment. An Obamoron sees only that “evil” businesses are getting punished for success and gives no thought to anything more. A related source of relief would be to be so unencumbered by thought that one doesn’t see the ridiculous hypocrisy of bemoaning the profits of productive business and celebrating the profits of useless “entertainment” ventures (music, movies, and television.)
Think about the freedom enjoyed by the people that could be so clueless that they believe that only by increasing the size and scope of government can we be saved from today’s biggest problems, while ignoring the fact that the biggest of our problems are caused by overreaching government involvement. It must be comforting to look to the government to meet an increasing number of an individuals needs without regard for the snowballing effect of growing government control. Medicine would be best distributed by a benevolent government. Education would be better delivered by a “progressive” government. Wages would best be dictated by an all-knowing government. The weather would best be controlled by an all-powerful government.
I personally believe it would be fabulous to have a mind so dull that I could ignore Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Saul Alinsky, and ACORN. I would be relieved to have such a shallow conscience that I could disregard Barack Obama’s active role in blocking the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” in The Illinois Senate.
I wish I could support Barack Obama… but I can’t. I am not capable of turning off my mind, ejecting my morals, and dulling my desire for liberty!
Posted in Celebrity Libiots, Global Warming Libiots, Illinois Libiots, Libiocracy, Libiot Candidates, Libiots On Abortion, Libiots On Immigration, Marx Worshipping Libiots, Socialist Libiots |
September 27th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Keep up the good work.
Debbie’s last blog post..Paul Newman dead at 83
September 28th, 2008 at 5:29 am
Effing
Brilliant.
September 28th, 2008 at 7:26 am
[...] MORE [...]
September 28th, 2008 at 7:47 am
September 28th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Why I would like to support Barack Obama…
Written by Sam Pierce at Malignant Liberal IdiocyI wish I could support Barack Obama in this election season. The reason for this wish is relatively simple, convenience. Imagine how much easier life would be if you possessed the loose grasp……
September 28th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
September 28th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Leftism is driven by a belief in the ‘perfection’ of mankind. To perfect mankind you need to change human nature. To change human nature you need a powerful centralized government that controls education and the economy. Initially it might look like many are looking for handouts when we see them sabotaging capitalism, and certainly some are just that lazy, but they aren’t the ones to worry about. It’s the glazed-eyed Obamatons who see any challenge to their leader as an obstacle to progress. The is why they have lawyers running around threatening station owners and journalists promising riots if we don’t vote in Obama. But all this is just political hardball. Evil would be president Obama anointing thousands of citizen minders to drag to jail those who refuse the brainwashing.
We aren’t seeing that…yet.
Shane from PV’s last blog post..McCain’s Debate, Obama’s Exam
September 28th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Thanks for reading this and commenting!
Shane,
I see your point and perhaps evil isn’t the best word to describe my perception of thinking liberals. I am, however, deeply bothered by the support of abortion by the majority of liberals and it is hard not to view such people as evil.
Thanks for your insight.
September 28th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
I know exactly what you mean - I wrote a post on the British “moral philospher” who thinks its OK to murder the demented or senile because they’re a “burden” on the nationalized healthcare system (http://politicalvindication.com/?p=2235). It’s hard to come up with another adjective when dealing with that kind of callousness…
Shane from PV’s last blog post..McCain’s Debate, Obama’s Exam
September 28th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Tex
Tex’s last blog post..Democrats
September 30th, 2008 at 11:47 am
I am pleased that you can see my dilema here.
September 30th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Thanks for stopping by. Your site will be added here soon.
September 30th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
September 30th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
do you really think that she and her running mate care about you ?
i wish i could read your article and find reasoning in it.
you people scare me sick.
September 30th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
You seem to have hit a sour note. I am surprised that an Obama supporter would be so angry. Shouldn’t you be preparing your spirit to be healed by “The One?”
September 30th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
i’m not angry, just sickened by sarah palin supporters.
palin is what this campaign is about.
the one ?
wow.
i’m pretty sure that palin is, how you say ? “the one”
who will bring this country down.
or you could be “the one”
who votes for her and destroys america.
but, no, i’m not angry, thanks for your concern.
October 4th, 2008 at 5:25 am
I’ll leave this one alone, but first I must post this. Nothing but the straight translation from the two VP candidates.
Asked what other Supreme Court decisions they disagree with the running mates said:
McPalin
“Well, let’s see. There’s, of course, in the great history of America rulings there have been rulings, that’s never going to be absolute consensus by every American,” Palin said. “And there are, those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but ….” “Well, I could think of, of any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I’m so privileged to serve, wouldn’t be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.”
Biden
…the decision that struck down a law giving abused women the right to sue their tormentors in federal court. Biden, a senator from Delaware, wrote the law.
October 14th, 2008 at 9:38 am
October 30th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
November 8th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
November 8th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
A man’s mind being open to everything and anything is not a good thing. You are correct that my mind is not open to the finer points of Grand Chancellor Elect Obama’s priorities:
Marxism
Punitive taxation
Infanticide
Job elimination
Racist “Social Justice”
November 8th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
I know you’re in great company -
Hitler
Stalin
David Dukes
SP - I’m surprised you libs would want to draw attention to Hitler & Stalin given that your political leaders have adopted some of their tactics. Hitler had his SS, “Big Brother” Barry has his “Civilian Defense Corps.”
None of them would of got to where they were if it wasn’t for closed minds taken their words as gospel.
SP - I’m glad you mentioned this problem. Hopefully more of you Obamorons will realize that you shouldn’t have taken Obama’s vague words as gospel.
Now lets look at some of things you mentioned…
Marxism, as defined in Marx’s Manifesto, can never happen in this nation because what makes the US different is a worker is not trapped at that station as they were in 19th Century Europe. It is possible for US workers to advance to management with education and hard work and therefore the establishment of a proletariat to champion the needs of workers is not necessary. Although we do take trade guilds and labor unions from Marx.
It would be easier to mount an argument against a political theory such as Communism if your mind wasn’t so narrow that you can’t research the facts for fear it would turn you.
SP - If Barack Obama wasn’t just blowing smoke to get the support of the far left, then he will work to create the situation you describe. Again, your mind seems to be the one that is closed… or is it stuck shut because of all the Kool Aid?
Punitive taxation - in order for a government to provide service to its citizens it collects taxes to pay for it. The more services demanded by the citizenry the more taxes they have to pay. If you want no taxes then demand no services. Now a government can choose to borrow money to finance the services it provides especially improvements to infrastructure instead of collecting taxes to pay for it but eventually it is taxes that will pay those expenses and the interest from the borrowing so when a government borrows money it has increased taxation but the increase is postponed. So here’s the here’s the deal… if you expect your municipal, state, and federal governments to serve you it ain’t free. It was never free, and it is never going to be free. Now at the federal level the largest tax burden is the military. If you want to see taxes go way down quick be part of the rising tide to end the occupation of Iraq and then give the Islamic fundamentalists what they want to cease all hostilities and that way we can save a billions of dollars on Homeland Security agencies. Punishment over.
SP - Are you being intentionally dishonest here, or are you as dense as this statement would make you appear? The punitive taxation of which I speak is your beloved Marxist progressive income tax, high capital gains taxes, high corporate taxes, etc. I would recommend The Fair Tax
or a flat tax.
It’s hard to see yourself as a stakeholder in our government when you have no sense of service to your community, state, or country. From what you write that is somebody else’s job to serve. You function is to make as much money as you can unobstructed.
SP - Moron, a sense of service does not come by being forcibly conscripted into it. Decent people will serve in the ways and in the quantities they feel are appropriate! Your thoughts on forced service under the direction of left wing radicals is disgusting and frightening!
Infanticide - Let’s assume you get the legislation you want, it is in direct conflict with your desire for no government. The law enforcement required to seize control of women’s bodies would be massive and expensive. Then there’s the responsibility the government would be forced to assume for all those children. Talk about punitive taxation!
You can reduce abortion and not get the government involved but it would take a major cultural shift in several sectors of Society. You can end it overnight but it would mean a commitment to community that goes against the grain of every man for himself state of mind.
SP - I will discuss abortion no further with you until I understand your perspective. Please answer the following question. Are you a proponent of legalizing all murder or just the murder of the most innocent?
Job elimination - according to your own economic beliefs job losses are inevitable. Bush followed your plan to the letter. He stood idle while the banks had their way with the Economy and it was only after they cried for helpd the rest of the World screamed that he got involved. You won’t admit it now but you voted for this guy twice and you didn’t see this mess coming? SUCKER!!!
SP - I voted twice for this guy, but I didn’t vote for all his actions and I definitely didn’t vote for the congressional scumbags that suckled at the teet of Clinton cronies in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac!
Hey, also according to your economic theory if you make a crappy product then the consumer will determine the fate of your company. The federal government and the State of Michigan had no say over Ford, GM, and Chrysler, and they had no say over all those companies that sold them the junk parts that gave their cars lower quality than their competitors. According to you Ford, GM, and Chrysler deserve to go under and all the companies that support them also deserve to go under. Since you work for one of those companies it stands to reason that you played a part in the destruction of the auto industry and the possible demise of your job. It is alright if you don’t want to take responsibility because any European, Asian, or African will tell you Americans are incapable of accepting responsiblity for what they do.
SP - Genius, who imposes the strangling regulations on these companies? Oh, that’s right, you ignore the causes of the problems because they oppose your leftist fertilizer! You couple the punitive taxes and regulations with high insurance (Democrat ambulance chasers) costs and the corporate raping at the hands of labor unions and you have a recipe for the type of failure that would be the subject of a liberal’s wet dream! By the way, your last sentence displays the type of animosity toward our country that we haven’t heard since Michelle Obama last spoke!
Social Justice - simply put means making things right for those who have been wronged. Looking out for the little guy.
Now you appear to be focused on the housing projects in the inner city but you forgot all about all those trailer parks. Lots and lots of trailer parks in every state in the Union. These trailer parks are in the hills, on the Plains, down in the swamps, and deep in the woods. They are entitled to this “social justice” and frankly they would be the first to throw shots if you took their food stamps,WIC, and “public assistance” away. Surely you’ve seen them at Walmart.
Making things right, racist? Protecting those who can’t protect themselves, racist? You can protect the defenseless when they two cells but not when their 8 years old, or 80 years old?
There’s a very obvious mean streak that exist in the Republican camp and I guess you can’t be that mean and not expect retribution for the wrongs you have done.
SP - Temporary assistance to the out of work is something I can live with. Special treatment of groups because of the actions of some in the nation’s past is another story. What is mean? Is volunteering time and giving to charities mean? That’s right, jackass, conservatives can be generous and charitable… they just do it with their own time and their own money unlike you Marxist bastards on the left!
November 8th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
November 9th, 2008 at 9:42 am
I responded to your long-winded compost with bold type within your compost heap.
As for unemployment benefits, I would certainly try to avoid using them. The first step would be to try like Hell to find another job, any job. You see, if there is a job out there that I can get, then that is what I must do.
November 9th, 2008 at 11:11 am
You say that conservatives can be generous and charitable. I believe you. So tell me what are the charities you’re involved? What do have you volunteered for. I really like to know.
Now, here’s the challenge, if you can handle it. I am not sure you can because your ability to articulate deteriorates into derogatory attacks - Ah, there’s that Conservative Mean Streak!
Support your claims, with documentation, and by that I mean a little more than the rantings of another person who doesn’t support their argument.
For example you mention regulation of auto industry. The only regulation I know of is the safety standards on the cars by NHTSA. Now the same automakers sell cars in Europe and, I am assuming you know this, the regulation required of those companies by those countries far exceed ours. We don’t require “End of Life” as the Brits do for example.
Now about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Your guy, and the Republican Congressional Leadership spearheaded deregulation of those banks. YOUR PEOPLE DID THAT. That’s when this started to turn to crap. You demanded deregulation, they deregulated, and it all came crashing down. Dude its time to take responsibility for that.
Insurance companies handling health care was first supported by Nixon, a Republican. Nixon paved the way to the health care system we have now. Is he not one of your heroes? Go easy on Insurance companies because they are part of the foundation of the Republican financial base. I wouldn’t piss them off if I was you.
Think about it, Liberals want universal health care - like the European nations have, and that would cut out the Insurance companies. Your thinking was not clear on that one - How do you say… Jackass.
If you can justify the death penalty then you can justify inflicting death anywhere at anytime its all how you articulate it. I find it hypocritical to fight for the fetus, let it be born, allow it to be neglected and turn into a violent criminal, then want to kill it at 16, 17, or 18. You can abort it now, or abort it later. You chose later.
The comedy of your rants is that to take care of babies that weren’t aborted is a huge part of that “racist social justice” you speak of.
So herr Pierce which is it? Save the innocents so they can be born, or damn them after they are born?
Where we differ is where you place the blame. You believe the blame lies on the medical professional willing to do abortions. I believe the blame lies on the environment that would drive that woman to consider abortion. Change the environment that drives women to choose abortion and then there will no abortion and the government does not have to get in a woman’s pants.
Bottom line, NO MAN has the right to dictate what a woman chooses to do with her body. I notices that this movement is mostly men, older men. I also notice these men are nowhere to be found when it comes to dealing with the children born to women that made that choice.
You want to know where I stand? Here it is. I am a man, and as a man I have no right to tell any woman what to do with her body. What she does is what she does and she has to live with that however she decides. What I can do, as a man, is if she decided to have that child I can offer to raise to be a decent, responsible human being. That I have actually done. I have adopted an unwanted child. He was a ward of the state consuming taxpayer money and I took on that burden because I hope he would be one less criminal out there. How about you? Now you know where I stand on that.
Now I have call you out on the cowards response to military service. Israel has consription and that is why they have survived as long as they have. You want all the perks to American citizenship you pay what you owe. If your country needs you to defend you pay what you owe. How long you going to depend on the farm boys and project kids to step up for you?
Yes I can see you gladly taking the crumbs off some rich guy’s table if you get desparate enough. However you lying if you expect me to believe that you would take a pass on a government sponsor training program that could lead to employment.
Start making higher quality auto parts before its too late because you don’t sound like the kind of guy that could change careers easily.
Finally I do respond a lot but that’s because I look at everything you say and question it or compare it to the available facts out there. I guess that is irritating isn’t it? Its got to be rough to speak the gospel and have me lay out all the flaws in detail. Sorry ’bout that herr Pierce.
November 9th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Thank you for informing me that there are no CAFE standards, no Sarbanes-Oxley, no OSHA, and no environmental restrictions on U.S. manufacturers. I will rest easier with this knowledge.
As for my charitable contributions and work, I’ll pass on giving details. Please feel free to use this in your next rant.
You provide no detail of any flaws. You merely provide the opinion of a libtard. If you seek documentation, I suggest you do whatever research is required. You see, here on MY blog, you don’t dictate the content of anything but the dung you fling.
I suggest again, that if the European nations have all the answers, perhaps you could consider moving to one as opposed to advocating for the enslavement of the working class of this nation… jackass.
November 9th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
As for all those regulations do your homework and find out when any of the agencies responsible did any enforcement. I think you’ll find that none of those agencies have been all that active against the automakers. Why? Because the most effective tool your guy had was to scale back those agencies until they were impotent. The same thing happened to FEMA, FDA, and the agency that regulates mining. I can’t imagine how an open mind like yours missed that.
You might be an ignorant, narrow minded, and short sighted but you can’t claim conservative until you know more about how your government operated. You need more education — go thee then to a library.
Why can’t you be man enough to admit your argument has flaws? Call me all the names you want but you have offered no proof that you are willing to do anything to improve the quality of life in this country.
You think by ranting you can stop abortion? You think by dumping that responsibility on the government you saved a life?
When you are hands on with all those disposable children then you can claim you saved a life.
Allowing those children to be born means nothing if they die at 2, or 6, or 10, or 16.
Now lets test you.
Are you not aware that when Bush took office, with the consent of the then Republican controlled Congress, he peeled back federal regulation across the board? Some areas, such as banking and energy, more than others.
Are you not aware that he granted tax cuts and then proceeded to finance government operations by going into massive debt?
Are you not aware the armed forces, specifically the Army and Marine Corps., are seriously understaffed? Why can’t you address that? If you’re kid is too good to serve his country WHO WILL?
Explain to me why the trailer park and project kid is not entitled to any social justice when they are willing to make the sacrifice your cowardice presents you and your kid to?
I have to tell ya I pressed the liberals just as hard as I pressed you. They are definitely more educated and therefore can better carry a discussion. They’re not so quick to be invective, but then they take time to study both their position and the opposition. Something you have apparently failed to do otherwise you would have intelligent answers to my questions.
Look, how can you make statements that Obama is harmful to Israel when you don’t believe in the way Israel defends itself? Sounds like you don’t have a clue about the role of Israel, and therefore you could not contribute any rational discussion on how peace may be obtained.
Now, here is an important philosophical truth. He who does not learn from History is doomed to repeat it. If you choose to ignore the successes and failures of other governments, other cultures, other people then you will suffer from the consequences from making the same mistakes.
November 9th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
April 1989 when I left for Basic Training, I guess I had forgotten about my cowardice and unwillingness to serve. Hey jackass, lend me your time machine so I can go back and live up to your blather. In the mean time please continue to type all you want, but realize your typing obligates no one to discuss anything.
Your intentional or stupid misrepresentations don’t inspire me to aid you in your mental masturbation.
November 9th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
We Blew It
A look back in remorse on the conservative opportunity that was squandered.
by P.J. O’Rourke
11/17/2008, Volume 014, Issue 09
Let us bend over and kiss our ass goodbye. Our 28-year conservative opportunity to fix the moral and practical boundaries of government is gone–gone with the bear market and the Bear Stearns and the bear that’s headed off to do you-know-what in the woods on our philosophy.
An entire generation has been born, grown up, and had families of its own since Ronald Reagan was elected. And where is the world we promised these children of the Conservative Age? Where is this land of freedom and responsibility, knowledge, opportunity, accomplishment, honor, truth, trust, and one boring hour each week spent in itchy clothes at church, synagogue, or mosque? It lies in ruins at our feet, as well it might, since we ourselves kicked the shining city upon a hill into dust and rubble. The progeny of the Reagan Revolution will live instead in the universe that revolves around Hyde Park.
Mind you, they won’t live in Hyde Park. Those leafy precincts will be reserved for the micromanagers and macro-apparatchiks of liberalism–for Secretary of the Department of Peace Bill Ayers and Secretary of the Department of Fairness Bernardine Dohrn. The formerly independent citizens of our previously self-governed nation will live, as I said, around Hyde Park. They will make what homes they can in the physical, ethical, and intellectual slums of the South Side of Chicago.
The South Side of Chicago is what everyplace in America will be once the Democratic administration and filibuster-resistant Democratic Congress have tackled global warming, sustainability, green alternatives to coal and oil, subprime mortgage foreclosures, consumer protection, business oversight, financial regulation, health care reform, taxes on the “rich,” and urban sprawl. The Democrats will have plenty of time to do all this because conservatism, if it is ever reborn, will not come again in the lifetime of anyone old enough to be rounded up by ACORN and shipped to the polling booths.
None of this is the fault of the left. After the events of the 20th century–national socialism, international socialism, inter-species socialism from Earth First–anyone who is still on the left is obviously insane and not responsible for his or her actions. No, we on the right did it. The financial crisis that is hoisting us on our own petard is only the latest (if the last) of the petard hoistings that have issued from the hindquarters of our movement. We’ve had nearly three decades to educate the electorate about freedom, responsibility, and the evils of collectivism, and we responded by creating a big-city-public-school-system of a learning environment.
Liberalism had been running wild in the nation since the Great Depression. At the end of the Carter administration we had it cornered in one of its dreadful low-income housing projects or smelly public parks or some such place, and we held the Taser gun in our hand, pointed it at the beast’s swollen gut, and didn’t pull the trigger. Liberalism wasn’t zapped and rolled away on a gurney and confined somewhere until it expired from natural causes such as natural law or natural rights.
In our preaching and our practice we neglected to convey the organic and universal nature of freedom. Thus we ensured our loss before we even began our winning streak. Barry Goldwater was an admirable and principled man. He took an admirably principled stand on states’ rights. But he was dead wrong. Separate isn’t equal. Ask a kid whose parents are divorced.
Since then modern conservatism has been plagued by the wrong friends and the wrong foes. The “Southern Strategy” was bequeathed to the Republican party by Richard Nixon–not a bad friend of conservatism but no friend at all. The Southern Strategy wasn’t needed. Southern whites were on–begging the pardon of the Scopes trial jury–an evolutionary course toward becoming Republican. There’s a joke in Arkansas about a candidate hustling votes in the country. The candidate asks a farmer how many children he has.
“I’ve got six sons,” the farmer says.
“Are they all good little Democrats?” the candidate asks.
“Well,” the farmer says, “five of ‘em are. But my oldest boy, he got to readin’ . . . ”
There was no need to piss off the entire black population of America to get Dixie’s electoral votes. And despising cracker trash who have a laundry hamper full of bedsheets with eye-holes cut in them does not make a man a liberal.
Blacks used to poll Republican. They did so right up until Mrs. Roosevelt made some sympathetic noises in 1932. And her husband didn’t even deliver on Eleanor’s promises.
It’s not hard to move a voting bloc. And it should be especially easy to move voters to the right. Sensible adults are conservative in most aspects of their private lives. If this weren’t so, imagine driving on I-95: The majority of drivers are drunk, stoned, making out, or watching TV, while the rest are trying to calculate the size of their carbon footprints on the backs of Whole Foods receipts while negotiating lane changes.
People are even more conservative if they have children. Nobody with kids is a liberal, except maybe one pothead in Marin County. Everybody wants his or her children to respect freedom, exercise responsibility, be honest, get educated, have opportunities, and own a bunch of guns. (The last is optional and includes, but is not limited to, me, my friends in New Hampshire, and Sarah Palin.)
Reagan managed to reach out to blue collar whites. But there his reach stopped, leaving many people on our side, but barely knowing it. There are enough yarmulkes among the neocons to show that Jews are not immune to conservatism. Few practicing Catholics vote Democratic anymore except in Massachusetts where they put something in the communion wafers. When it comes to a full-on, hemp-wearing, kelp-eating, mandala-tatted, fool-coifed liberal with socks in sandals, I have never met a Muslim like that or a Chinese and very few Hispanics. No U.S. immigrants from the Indian subcontinent fill that bill (the odd charlatan yogi excepted), nor do immigrants from Africa, Eastern Europe, or East Asia. And Japanese tourists may go so far as socks in sandals, but their liberal nonsense stops at the ankles.
We have all of this going for us, worldwide. And yet we chose to deliver our sermons only to the faithful or the already converted. Of course the trailer park Protestants yell “Amen.” If you were handling rattlesnakes and keeping dinosaurs for pets, would you vote for the party that gets money from PETA?
In how many ways did we fail conservatism? And who can count that high? Take just one example of our unconserved tendency to poke our noses into other people’s business: abortion. Democracy–be it howsoever conservative–is a manifestation of the will of the people. We may argue with the people as a man may argue with his wife, but in the end we must submit to the fact of being married. Get a pro-life friend drunk to the truth-telling stage and ask him what happens if his 14-year-old gets knocked up. What if it’s rape? Some people truly have the courage of their convictions. I don’t know if I’m one of them. I might kill the baby. I will kill the boy.
The real message of the conservative pro-life position is that we’re in favor of living. We consider people–with a few obvious exceptions–to be assets. Liberals consider people to be nuisances. People are always needing more government resources to feed, house, and clothe them and to pick up the trash around their FEMA trailers and to make sure their self-esteem is high enough to join community organizers lobbying for more government resources.
If the citizenry insists that abortion remain legal–and, in a passive and conflicted way, the citizenry seems to be doing so–then give the issue a rest. Meanwhile we can, with the public’s blessing, refuse to spend taxpayers’ money on killing, circumscribe the timing and method of taking a human life, make sure parental consent is obtained when underage girls are involved, and tar and feather teenage boys and run them out of town on a rail. The law cannot be made identical with morality. Scan the list of the Ten Commandments and see how many could be enforced even by Rudy Giuliani.
Our impeachment of President Clinton was another example of placing the wrong political emphasis on personal matters. We impeached Clinton for lying to the government. To our surprise the electorate gave us cold comfort. Lying to the government: It’s called April 15th. And we accused Clinton of lying about sex, which all men spend their lives doing, starting at 15 bragging about things we haven’t done yet, then on to fibbing about things we are doing, and winding up with prevarications about things we no longer can do.
When the Monica Lewinsky news broke, my wife set me straight about the issue. “Here,” she said, “is the most powerful man in the world. And everyone hates his wife. What’s the matter with Sharon Stone? Instead, he’s hitting on an emotionally disturbed intern barely out of her teens.” But our horn rims were so fogged with detestation of Clinton that we couldn’t see how really detestable he was. If we had stayed our hand in the House of Representatives and treated the brute with shunning or calls for interventions to make him seek help, we might have chased him out of the White House. (Although this probably would have required a U.S. news media from a parallel universe.)
Such things as letting the abortion debate be turned against us and using the gravity of the impeachment process on something that required the fly-swat of pest control were strategic errors. Would that blame could be put on our strategies instead of ourselves. We have lived up to no principle of conservatism.
Government is bigger than ever. We have fattened the stalled ox and hatred therewith rather than dined on herbs where love (and the voter) is. Instead of flattening the Department of Education with a wrecking ball we let it stand as a pulpit for Bill Bennett. When–to switch metaphors yet again–such a white elephant is not discarded someone will eventually try to ride in the howdah on its back. One of our supposed own did. No Child Left Behind? What if they deserve to be left behind? What if they deserve a smack on the behind? A nationwide program to test whether kids are what? Stupid? You’ve got kids. Kids are stupid.
We railed at welfare and counted it a great victory when Bill Clinton confused a few poor people by making the rules more complicated. But the “French-bread lines” for the rich, the “terrapin soup kitchens,” continue their charity without stint.
The sludge and dreck of political muck-funds flowing to prosperous businesses and individuals have gotten deeper and more slippery and stink worse than ever with conservatives minding the sewage works of legislation.
Agriculture is a business that has been up to its bib overalls in politics since the first Thanksgiving dinner kickback to the Indians for subsidizing Pilgrim maize production with fish head fertilizer grants. But never, since the Mayflower knocked the rock in Plymouth, has anything as putrid as the Farm, Nutrition and Bioenergy Act of 2008 been spread upon the land. Just the name says it. There are no farms left. Not like the one grampa grew up on.
A “farm” today means 100,000 chickens in a space the size of a Motel 6 shower stall. If we cared anything about “nutrition” we would–to judge by the mountainous, jiggling flab of Americans–stop growing all food immediately. And “bioenergy” is a fraud of John Edwards-marital-fidelity proportions. Taxpayer money composted to produce a fuel made of alcohol that is more expensive than oil, more polluting than oil, and almost as bad as oil with vermouth and an olive. But this bill passed with bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress and was happily signed into law by President Bush. Now it’s going to cost us at least $285 billion. That’s about five times the gross domestic product of prewar Iraq. For what we will spend on the Farm, Nutrition and Bioenergy Act of 2008 we could have avoided the war in Iraq and simply bought a controlling interest in Saddam Hussein’s country.
Yes, we got a few tax breaks during the regimes of Reagan and W. But the government is still taking a third of our salary. Is the government doing a third of our job? Is the government doing a third of our dishes? Our laundry? Our vacuuming? When we go to Hooters is the government tending bar making sure that one out of three margaritas is on the house? If our spouse is feeling romantic and we’re tired, does the government come over to our house and take care of foreplay? (Actually, during the Clinton administration . . . )
Anyway, a low tax rate is not–never mind the rhetoric of every conservative politician–a bedrock principle of conservatism. The principle is fiscal responsibility.
Conservatives should never say to voters, “We can lower your taxes.” Conservatives should say to voters, “You can raise spending. You, the electorate, can, if you choose, have an infinite number of elaborate and expensive government programs. But we, the government, will have to pay for those programs. We have three ways to pay.
“We can inflate the currency, destroying your ability to plan for the future, wrecking the nation’s culture of thrift and common sense, and giving free rein to scallywags to borrow money for worthless scams and pay it back 10 cents on the dollar.
“We can raise taxes. If the taxes are levied across the board, money will be taken from everyone’s pocket, the economy will stagnate, and the poorest and least advantaged will be harmed the most. If the taxes are levied only on the wealthy, money will be taken from wealthy people’s pockets, hampering their capacity to make loans and investments, the economy will stagnate, and the poorest and the least advantaged will be harmed the most.
“And we can borrow, building up a massive national debt. This will cause all of the above things to happen plus it will fund Red Chinese nuclear submarines that will be popping up in San Francisco Bay to get some decent Szechwan take-out.”
Yes, this would make for longer and less pithy stump speeches. But we’d be showing ourselves to be men and women of principle. It might cost us, short-term. We might get knocked down for not whoring after bioenergy votes in the Iowa caucuses. But at least we wouldn’t land on our scruples. And we could get up again with dignity intact, dust ourselves off, and take another punch at the liberal bully-boys who want to snatch the citizenry’s freedom and tuck that freedom, like a trophy feather, into the hatbands of their greasy political bowlers.
But are we men and women of principle? And I don’t mean in the matter of tricky and private concerns like gay marriage. Civil marriage is an issue of contract law. A constitutional amendment against gay marriage? I don’t get it. How about a constitutional amendment against first marriages? Now we’re talking. No, I speak, once again, of the geological foundations of conservatism.
Where was the meum and the tuum in our shakedown of Washington lobbyists? It took a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives 40 years–from 1954 to 1994–to get that corrupt and arrogant. And we managed it in just 12. (Who says Republicans don’t have much on the ball?)
Our attitude toward immigration has been repulsive. Are we not pro-life? Are not immigrants alive? Unfortunately, no, a lot of them aren’t after attempting to cross our borders. Conservative immigration policies are as stupid as conservative attitudes are gross. Fence the border and give a huge boost to the Mexican ladder industry. Put the National Guard on the Rio Grande and know that U.S. troops are standing between you and yard care. George W. Bush, at his most beneficent, said if illegal immigrants wanted citizenship they would have to do three things: Pay taxes, learn English, and work in a meaningful job. Bush doesn’t meet two out of three of those qualifications. And where would you rather eat? At a Vietnamese restaurant? Or in the Ayn Rand Café? Hey, waiter, are the burgers any good? Atlas shrugged. (We would, however, be able to have a smoke at the latter establishment.)
To go from slime to the sublime, there are the lofty issues about which we never bothered to form enough principles to go out and break them. What is the coherent modern conservative foreign policy?
We may think of this as a post 9/11 problem, but it’s been with us all along. What was Reagan thinking, landing Marines in Lebanon to prop up the government of a country that didn’t have one? In 1984, I visited the site where the Marines were murdered. It was a beachfront bivouac overlooked on three sides by hills full of hostile Shiite militia. You’d urge your daughter to date Rosie O’Donnell before you’d put troops ashore in such a place.
Since the early 1980s I’ve been present at the conception (to use the polite term) of many of our foreign policy initiatives. Iran-contra was about as smart as using the U.S. Postal Service to get weapons to anti-Communists. And I notice Danny Ortega is back in power anyway. I had a look into the eyes of the future rulers of Afghanistan at a sura in Peshawar as the Soviets were withdrawing from Kabul. I would rather have had a beer with Leonid Brezhnev.
Fall of the Berlin wall? Being there was fun. Nations that flaked off of the Soviet Union in southeastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucasus? Being there was not so fun.
The aftermath of the Gulf war still makes me sick. Fine to save the fat, greedy Kuwaitis and the arrogant, grasping house of Saud, but to hell with the Shiites and Kurds of Iraq until they get some oil.
Then, half a generation later, when we returned with our armies, we expected to be greeted as liberators. And, damn it, we were. I was in Baghdad in April 2003. People were glad to see us, until they noticed that we’d forgotten to bring along any personnel or provisions to feed or doctor the survivors of shock and awe or to get their electricity and water running again. After that they got huffy and began stuffing dynamite down their pants before consulting with the occupying forces.
Is there a moral dimension to foreign policy in our political philosophy? Or do we just exist to help the world’s rich people make and keep their money? (And a fine job we’ve been doing of that lately.)
If we do have morals, where were they while Bosnians were slaughtered? And where were we while Clinton dithered over the massacres in Kosovo and decided, at last, to send the Serbs a message: Mess with the United States and we’ll wait six months, then bomb the country next to you. Of Rwanda, I cannot bear to think, let alone jest.
And now, to glue and screw the lid on our coffin, comes this financial crisis. For almost three decades we’ve been trying to teach average Americans to act like “stakeholders” in their economy. They learned. They’re crying and whining for government bailouts just like the billionaire stakeholders in banks and investment houses. Aid, I can assure you, will be forthcoming from President Obama.
Then average Americans will learn the wisdom of Ronald Reagan’s statement: “The ten most dangerous words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the federal government, and I’m here to help.’ ” Ask a Katrina survivor.
The left has no idea what’s going on in the financial crisis. And I honor their confusion. Jim Jerk down the road from me, with all the cars up on blocks in his front yard, falls behind in his mortgage payments, and the economy of Iceland implodes. I’m missing a few pieces of this puzzle myself.
Under constant political pressure, which went almost unresisted by conservatives, a lot of lousy mortgages that would never be repaid were handed out to Jim Jerk and his drinking buddies and all the ex-wives and single mothers with whom Jim and his pals have littered the nation.
Wall Street looked at the worthless paper and thought, “How can we make a buck off this?” The answer was to wrap it in a bow. Take a wide enough variety of lousy mortgages–some from the East, some from the West, some from the cities, some from the suburbs, some from shacks, some from McMansions–bundle them together and put pressure on the bond rating agencies to do fancy risk management math, and you get a “collateralized debt obligation” with a triple-A rating. Good as cash. Until it wasn’t.
Or, put another way, Wall Street was pulling the “room full of horse s–” trick. Brokerages were saying, “We’re going to sell you a room full of horse s–. And with that much horse s–, you just know there’s a pony in there somewhere.”
Anyway, it’s no use blaming Wall Street. Blaming Wall Street for being greedy is like scolding defensive linemen for being big and aggressive. The people on Wall Street never claimed to be public servants. They took no oath of office. They’re in it for the money. We pay them to be in it for the money. We don’t want our retirement accounts to get a 2 percent return. (Although that sounds pretty good at the moment.)
What will destroy our country and us is not the financial crisis but the fact that liberals think the free market is some kind of sect or cult, which conservatives have asked Americans to take on faith. That’s not what the free market is. The free market is just a measurement, a device to tell us what people are willing to pay for any given thing at any given moment. The free market is a bathroom scale. You may hate what you see when you step on the scale. “Jeeze, 230 pounds!” But you can’t pass a law making yourself weigh 185. Liberals think you can. And voters–all the voters, right up to the tippy-top corner office of Goldman Sachs–think so too.
We, the conservatives, who do understand the free market, had the responsibility to–as it were–foreclose upon this mess. The market is a measurement, but that measuring does not work to the advantage of a nation or its citizens unless the assessments of volume, circumference, and weight are conducted with transparency and under the rule of law. We’ve had the rule of law largely in our hands since 1980. Where is the transparency? It’s one more job we botched.
Although I must say we’re doing good work on our final task–attaching the garden hose to our car’s exhaust pipe and running it in through a vent window. Barack and Michelle will be by in a moment with some subsidized ethanol to top up our gas tank. And then we can turn the key.
Finally someone who is man enough to take responsibility!
November 9th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
I’m sorry you are so miserable and apparently have no life.
November 9th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Besides I have questioned your reading skills for some time. You yourself have admitted that you didn’t do half the work you were assigned in college.
December 23rd, 2008 at 1:55 am
ahhh I crack myself up..
It could be a jolly ol’ Christmas afer all. Just have to roll with it. (ROFL)
Sorry sepierce, your excellent points and writing deserves better.
I was just thinking how much simpler life would be if I could skip ALL standards and write their theyre there your youre whats the difference!
Then go TOTALLY bonkers and skip language and reason altogether with:
LOLOLOL! ROLF! WMD!! OMG!! BUSH!!
Got carried away.