Tag Archives: Leftist Insanity

We no longer have a Government.

Posted by on November 7, 2012 No comments

I’ve been listening to people attempt to downplay the devastation Obama will bring to America over the next four years. They drone on about how our government’s checks and balances prevent any president from doing too much damage to our nation. Unfortunately this assumes that American government still functions as it was intended to function. People are apparently unaware that our government no longer follows its own laws.

It is absolutely true that the Founding Fathers gave us a system of government that should have protected our nation from the excesses of any single president. However, the checks and balances, balance of powers, and other limitations enshrined in the Constitution (which they now call gridlock), have all been ignored by our current government. Those checks and balances disappeared as soon as those in power realized that they could ignore the law and no one would do anything about it. This leaves America vulnerable to any tyrant capable of winning an election…  Take Obama for instance.

Now that the Constitution is completely ignored, elections determine what the bare majority can inflict upon the other 49% of the population. There are no restraints, no restrictions on governmental authority, no limitations on governmental power, no protection of inalienable rights. Four more years of Obama is scary ONLY because the government ignores the Constitution and BECAUSE there are no longer any separations of powers.

Earlier this year the U.S. Attorney General announced that the President had the legal authority to order the

killing of any person, including a U.S. citizen, without trial. He explained that under certain circumstances, the President can order anyone outside America to be killed. Of course the circumstances are to be determined by Obama and his staff. No due process. No oversight. No appeal. PLAINLY unconstitutional.  but he did it anyway.

A few days after this announcement the Director of the FBI was questioned by a Congressional committee as to whether it applied to U.S. citizens within the borders of the U.S. His answer was that he would have to check the law. He DIDN’T say, “no, that would clearly be unconstitutional.” He DIDN’T say, “That would clearly violate the citizen’s right to not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.” He DIDN’T immediately respond by saying, “Hell NO, that would be murder.” The highest ranking government official in the federal government’s domestic law enforcement department said he wasn’t sure if the president had authority to unilaterally order the murder of an American citizen on American soil.

A government that ignores its own laws is NOT A GOVERNMENT!!!

It’s just a bunch of bullies asserting the power through coercion and threats. Our government now ignores its own laws. America, as established by our Founding Fathers, was a GREAT country. We must do whatever it takes to get it back. Our daily lives will get worse, MUCH worse, if we don’t throw off this outlaw band of bullies.

One step forward, two steps back:

Last summer the Supreme Court agreed with LLF’s argument in the U.S. v. Arizona case. Liberty Legal Foundation filed an amicus brief that made only one point: That existing Federal Law prohibited the Obama administration from telling Arizona it couldn’t ask for immigration status information on individual arrestees. To the best of their knowledge, no one else made this point to the Court. This was one of the few areas that the Court found in favor of the State of Arizona.

Unfortunately, the Court also told Arizona, and every other state, that States can’t enforce Federal immigration law. This part of the decision was completely unique in American history. This was a huge defeat that leaves no check on the president’s total authority regarding enforcement of immigration law. In the words of dissenting Justice Scalia, the 50 States are no longer sovereign. In the end LLF did what they could, but the Court’s decision on a different part of the case caused much more damage than LLF fixed. They plug one hole, the Court makes a bigger one somewhere else.

The Court also agreed with LLF, to a certain degree, in the Obamacare case. Again, LLF filed an amicus brief. Again, LLF was practically alone in making the most important argument: the commerce clause was never intended to allow Congress to do anything it wants to do. The Court didn’t overturn Wickard v. Filburn, as they wanted, but it did agree that the individual mandate was beyond Congressional authority under the commerce clause. The Court said that even the Wickard standard doesn’t justify the individual mandate.

Unfortunately the Court then issued completely new and completely arbitrary and unexpected precedent granting Congress authority to enforce any regulation Congress can dream up; as long as enforcement is via a fine collected by the IRS. The Court’s Obamacare ruling blew all tax and spend clause precedent out of the water. It opened a completely new avenue for Congress to assert authority that was explicitly denied to Congress by the Founding Fathers. Again, the Court gave LLF what they asked for, but made matters much worse by changing the rules elsewhere.

It seems that federal courts are determined to kill whatever remains of the Constitution. We must find a way to re-establish the rule of law.

We must find a solution before the only solution is armed conflict.  because that is what an oppressed population eventually degrades to…  all out civil war.  Obama has us hurling in that direction.  At some point soon, the producers who are carrying the rest of the parasites on their backs will say no more and either leave the U.S., or join the battle.  either choice is horrible… and they are BOTH the fault of Barack Obama and his parasite followers.

Leftism .. The Current Confusion

Posted by on April 25, 2011 No comments

The quotations given in part 1 of this series stress the importance of attitude to the State as a differentiator of the political Left and Right. We also however often hear that it is attitude to change that differentiates Left and Right. Which is correct? It will be argued here that both characterizations contain important truths but that we need to go deeper into the psychology of politics before we understand what Leftism really is and why it is. And to support the psychological analysis we will be relying not on psychological experiments and surveys but on the realities of history itself.

The idea that conservatives are simply people who are opposed to change is so absurd that only an intellectual could believe it. All the conservatives that I know would like to see a HEAP of things changed about our society and no conservative government that I have ever heard of has lacked an active legislative programme. Yet the childish and counterfactual equation of conservatism and opposition to change finds its way into dictionaries and even into articles in prestigious academic journals — such as the widely-noted paper in the prestigious Psychological Bulletin by Jost et. al. in 2003 (See here and see a critique here). So what is going on? My suggestion is that we are asking the wrong question. It is Leftism we need to define, not conservatism. When we do that, what seems folly suddenly makes sense.

But is there such a thing as Leftism and Rightism? Is not that whole division into just two categories far too simple-minded? I will go into that in some detail later (in my research career I spent years studying just that question) but let us start out here by acknowledging that most ordinary people do not fit very neatly into any political category and may hold to a mix of views that include what would usually be seen as both Leftist and Rightist ideas. Among professional politicians and in academe, however, there is perhaps generally clearer polarization. So what is it that makes any given view “Rightist” or “Leftist”? In contemporary North American terms, what is it that makes one an archetypal “liberal” or an archetypal “conservative”? What IS a Leftist or a Rightist position on any issue?

There does seem to be a divide there of considerable potency and generalizability and the demise of that great icon of Leftism — the Soviet Union — seems to have had little impact on the division concerned. Leftists may no longer have Communism to point to as a possible alternative system but they remain Leftists all the same. The banner proposal of Leftists since Karl Marx — State ownership of the means of production or “socialism” no longer seems reasonable to all but a handful of diehards but Leftists are still Leftists and Rightists are still Rightists and never, it seems, the twain shall meet.

And the great rubric of “conservative” long fastened on Rightists seems equally moribund if “conservative” is understood in the dictionary sense. “Conservative” is generally defined as meaning “opposed to change” or “favouring the status quo” but from the Reagan/Thatcher years onward, it has been “conservatives” who have been the most notable advocates and practitioners of social and political change. Rightists have been almost revolutionary in tearing down the proud edifices of the Left — with privatization, deregulation, welfare cutbacks, tax reductions etc. Judging by the politics of the late 20th century, Rightists LOVE change! Certainly, they have clearly and energetically changed what was once the status quo.

So what is going on? Again, what really IS Leftism/liberalism and WHY are people Leftist/liberal? What, if anything, do people have in common who describe themselves (and are described by others) as “Leftists”, “socialists”, “social democrats”, “Communists” and (in North America) “liberals”? However unsatisfactory and apparently simplistic the Left/Right division of the political world may be, there is any amount of research showing it to be a powerful, ubiquitous and perhaps inescapable way of identifying both people and political parties (e.g. Budge et al., 1987; Ray, 1982; Bobbio, 1996) so we do need to answer such questions. We do need to find out what REALLY characterizes the Left/Right division.

Conservatives… Emotion…

Posted by on April 9, 2011 No comments

Democrats, the long time supporters of slavery (See the Civil War), fought tooth and nail against civil rights legislation. Then they substituted welfare as a new form of slavery, and went right on enslaving...

Conservatives and emotion

I have a separate monograph on conservatism but I think I need to say a few more things about conservatism here. The main thing that I have said so far about conservatives is that they are cautious. But caution is not really an emotion. It is a disposition and some emotions have to go with that but I think I should say a little more about what those emotions are.

What I did mention above is that conservatives are always shown in research as being happier and more content than Leftists and that leads into what I think is important. Because conservatives are NOT full of rage, they feel free to enjoy whatever is around them. And one of the great satisfactions in human life is fellowship: Feeling part of a group of people whom you like or respect. So instead of screaming “racism” at every sign of group loyalty, conservatives can simply enjoy their group loyalties. They are untroubled patriots, for instance.

So American conservatives can feel warm inside to be Americans and they can greatly value the fellowship they find in their church. And where conservatives diverge most strongly from Leftists is that they can also feel a sense of fellowship, belonging and connectedness with their ancestors and forebears. We often see this very strongly expressed among American conservatives when they talk about the “Founders” of the nation and the wisdom the founders bequeathed in the Constitution etc. And such thoughts are of course often to the fore on Thanksgiving day. And I have put up a “Thanksgiving” edition of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH that shows how much hostility Thanksgiving now attracts from the Left. Thanksgiving is of course a continuation of traditional harvest festivals. Human beings have always joyously celebrated a successful harvest and given thanks to their Gods for it. It takes the hate-filled modern-day Leftist activists to find any fault with that.

And another common expression of solidarity with the past is of course the great respect that conservatives pay to those who have died in war in the service of their nation. In my country, Australia, that day of remembrance (which we call Anzac day) is our only really solemn national occasion. Leftists have tried to laugh at it from time to time but it goes from strength to strength, with young people as well as old participating in the services of remembrance.

And there is no doubt that the army is always one of the most solidly conservative bodies of people that exists in any community. And the degree of fellowship in the army must be very close to maximal. If you pass a member of your old army unit in the street, you always stop to say a few words at least. There is a lasting bond between men who have fought together that outsiders can only dimly understand. My time in the Australian army was most undistinguished (though very fondly remembered) but I was an army psychologist so perhaps I have a little more awareness of what the army is about than most. I am certainly pleased to say that I have worn my country’s uniform.

All these sorts of fellowship that conservatives feel are generally felt pretty strongly. There is often a swelling of pride and gratitude associated with such feelings. And, because of his anger and dissatisfation with society, the poor sad old Leftist is basically left out of all that. His hate and rage bars him from sharing some of the most basic human connections and emotions. And, where Leftist followers are concerned, that is particularly sad. As an emotional person, he is probably much in need of such connections and feelings so not having them must multiply his bitterness. So when Leftist followers do at long last find an outlet for their need for fellowship and connectedness that passes muster with them we get the completely over the top hysteria of Fascism, Nazism or Obama-worship. (Anybody who has been conned into believing that the National Socialist Hitler and the Marxist Mussolini were Rightists should read here and here)

To summarize so far, then: In political matters Leftists have primarily negative emotions whereas conservatives have primarily positive emotions. And the happiness research bears that out.

What is Leftism

Posted by on April 1, 2011 No comments

Nothing matters to the leftist. They are simply angry, myopic, and eager to blame everyone for everything. They simply want to see themselves as a David to Someone else's Goliath.

The first thing to say is that Leftism is emotional. The second is to say that the emotion is negative and the third thing to say is that the negative emotion (anger/hate/rage) is directed at the world about the Leftist, at the status quo if you like. The Leftist is nothing if he is not a critic, though usually a very poorly-informed critic. And the criticisms are both pervasive and deeply felt.

Orwell of course understood Leftism exceptionally well so it is revealing that in 1943 he wrote an essay called “Can Socialists Be Happy?” His answer is that they can’t even imagine it.

What is routinely overlooked in most discussions of ideology is that conservatives don’t like the status quo either — but they don’t hate it and they rarely get burned up about it. Ask almost any conservative and he will give you a long list of things he would like to see changed in the world about him. It is only a misleading Leftist caricature to say that conservatives support the status quo. And iconic conservatives like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were undoubtedly great agents of change.

So Left and Right do indeed differ in their response to the status quo but not in the simplistic “for and against” way that Leftists claim. The difference is in depth of feeling and in the changes desired. Leftists want change passionately and feel very righteous about the changes they want. Conservatives can see fault and conservative leaders do quite regularly work towards the changes that they and their voters think desirable — but most conservatives just want to get on with their own lives. The typical conservative does not simmer if his wishes for change are not implemented. The Leftist does.

 

More Screaming. Demanding double and triple what their private sector counterparts, The seek to create an unfair advantage for themselves at the expense of the rest of us.

SEIU union thugs in action.I am not sure that there are ANY people who are completely happy with the world as it is (I know of none) but, if they exist, they are not concerned about politics. So how they vote has to be speculative. It would make some sense to claim that they vote conservative when called upon to vote — as they would not be able to find much in common with the constant complaint that is the mark of the Leftist — but on the other hand perhaps they simply vote for whatever seems fashionable or popular at the time: Many of the Obama voters of 2008, perhaps?

One marker of the difference just set out will be well known to anyone who reads blogs from both sides of the divide: Profanity is hugely more common on Leftist blogs. A systematic study of the matter found profanity to be TWELVE TIMES more common on Leftist blogs. Profanity is of course an attempt to express one’s feelings strongly.

Note that I do NOT use the word “liberal” for the Left side of politics. “Liberal” as a name for any left-leaning political party is just camouflage. Except in sex-related matters, liberty is in general a very low priority for them. And their attack on sexual mores arose only as a means of tearing down the status quo. Their advocacy of freedom of choice in sexual and reproductive matters soon breaks down if people make choices they disapprove of. The amazing attacks on Sarah Palin’s decision to bear a handicapped child rather than abort it certainly showed no respect for her choice in the matter. And far-Leftists such as Britain’s Harriet Harman make quite virulent attacks on prostitution under the guise that it “degrades women”. And fundamentalist Mormon polygamy has no friends on the Left (though Muslim polygamy is OK).

So what is conservatism? Basically it is caution based on a perception that the world is an unpredictable, dangerous and often hostile place. So change is not rejected. It is in fact, as just said, usually desired. But it is approached in a skeptical, step by step way to ensure that its effects are beneficial or at least benign. And an important criterion of what constitutes “benign” is how the change affects individual liberty. At a minimum, a conservative wants to ensure that change will not reduce his individual liberty.

Because the Leftist is angry rather than prudent, however, he cares not a bit for the conservative’s caution. The most thorough-going Leftist just wants to smash everything that exists around him out of the feeling that it is all so hateful that none of it is worth preserving. And in the French revolution, the Bolshevik revolution, the Maoist revolution and many more minor revolutions, the Leftists got their way — with results we all know about. Doing any sort of a good job of putting back together what they have smashed is beyond them. They are destroyers only. Hate is not constructive.

Because we all know of those dismal results, Leftist activists and politicians in entrenched democracies have to be more careful. Expressing the full extent of their feelings and advocating revolution would simply marginalize them and they know that. So they have to find ways of undermining society in more subtle ways. And they are greatly aided in that by the complex nature of modern society. Most people have only the vaguest notion of how society works so the Leftist politician can propose various changes that sound good but which will be disastrous in practice — with “share and share alike” being the classic example of that. And when the disasters unfold the committed Leftist cannot lose. He will get an internal glow of satisfaction from the suffering and disruption unleashed on all those fools around him that he hates but will be excused from blame because he “meant well”.