About the Democrats and “History”

As I’ve already noted in this blog, the Left’s obsession with history doesn’t go as far as considering whether it’s good history or bad history.  In a superb article, Abe Greenwald makes precisely the same point:

For amid the symbolic fanfare of giant gavels and the tactical gravitas of deployed Lincoln quotes, one important fact is being swept aside: the state’s co-opting of the private sector never ends well. Every learned lesson about free markets and central planning, incentives, the allocation of scarce resources under competing systems, government incompetence, overall quality of life and freedom in socialist vs. capitalist states — in short, the reality of the Cold War — has been unlearned. Sunday night brought us the most ahistoric bit of history-making we’re likely to see in our lifetimes.

Middle East history has also gone out the window. Whenever Israel has acceded to Palestinian demands, the result has been increased Arab violence. The Palestinians, for their part, have yet to do what Israel and America ask: crack down on terrorism and recognize the Jewish state’s right to exist.

But Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi can outsmart history. They also know best what’s good for the public, which is opposed to their campus-hatched schemes. Never mind what the people themselves want. The Democrats dismiss, along with history and majority opinion, the very system used to enact policy. The president told Bret Baier, “I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or the Senate.” Of course not, too much history to make.

Read the rest here.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    Leaders aren’t here to give people what they want. They are here to give people what they need.
     
    What they need, not what they want: big difference. PillowC, Weed, and Obunga gave people exactly what they voted for. The kind of puerile ignorance and self-righteous indignation that came to those who wanted to change the face of America. Too bad most of their brain power was devoted to figuring out that Sarah Palin was hot and not to the kind of thug leadership Obama had demonstrated.
     
     

  • Pingback: » Links To Visit – 03/23/10 NoisyRoom.net: There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword, the other is by debt. John Adams()

  • suek

    Here’s an interesting article – it explains the “whiteness” issue better than Helen seemed to be able to.  It also addresses the problems associated with the Black Liberation Theory.  All in all, an article that Helen should read, but I recommend it as one we all should read.  It makes Helen’s position a bit clearer.  Not more reasonable, imo, but at least more intelligible.
     
    http://americasright.com/?p=3913

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    ” imo, but at least more intelligible.”
     
     
    I thought that was my task?

  • http://thoughtyoudneverask.blogspot.com/ zabrina

    “I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or the Senate.”  Spoken like a true Constitutional scholar. NOT.

  • Deana

    I think this is what bothers me most.  I mean, where is the evidence that the type of centralized planning that this health program will require has EVER worked?
     
    There is none.  And we know this from even a general review of the 20th century.
     
    But no.  We have to spend the next 100 years and untold amounts of money and lives to relearn what anyone would know after reading about 20th century history.
     
    But Greenwald is correct:  Obama “knows” what is better for us.

  • suek

    Ymar…
     
    Making Helen intelligible is difficult.  It takes more than one person.  I’ll let you take on the chore of interpreting her statements…but the link makes the goals of “Black Liberation Theology” clearer.  Understanding BLT is one thing, understanding Helen is something else.  She has the heart of a poet…for those of us who do _not_, she requires interpretation.  But BLT combines Obama’s other two underlying principles – communism and islam.  The goal of all three is the defeat of the USA.  You defeat a country by military means or by economic means – death or debt.  Since they could not succeed by military means, they have chosen debt.
    They couldn’t succeed in the middle of the 20th century because the country was still too “moral” – not inclined to such consumption excesses.  One generation – or is it two? – later, we have thrown aside our moral restraints, and have elevated our consumption to excess, meaning that we are now vulnerable to debt.  I doubt we’ll change overnight.  After the roaring 20s came the depressed 30s, followed by the very conservative 40s.  I suspect we’re on the same path today.  My FIL reached economic success as measured by many.  They were certainly comfortable, at least.  Nevertheless, when we gave him a box of chocolate covered cherries – which he dearly loved – he limited himself to _one_ a day.  Not for dietary reasons, but because to eat more would be excessive.  He and my MIL lived through tough days – he could enjoy small pleasures in life without overdoing.  I suspect we’re going to have to learn that hard lesson again.
     
    By the way…I think that women’s lib had a lot to do with this downfall.  “The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world”…and there aren’t any hands on the cradle these days.  I don’t know the answer to that particular problem.  It seems to me to be a waste for a society to not use the capability of 50% of the population.  Women have much to offer.  At the same time, women are “designed” to be the primary civilizer and instructor of the next generation.  Raising children is sometimes like watching paint dry – it’s much more exciting to be involved with the commerce of the world – but if we hand over the job to some of the lowest paid, least educated  workers in our society, how can we be surprised when our children don’t live up to our expectations?

  • Mike Devx

    James Cameron mouths off:
     
    What makes Beck dangerous, THR asked Cameron at the junket. 

    “He’s dangerous because his ideas are poisonous,” Cameron answered. “I couldn’t believe when he was on CNN. I thought, what happened to CNN? Who is this guy? Who is this madman? And then of course he wound up on Fox News, which is where he belongs, I guess.”

    Asked by THR if he felt the right wing’s attacks against him were continuing, Cameron replied: “They’re not attacks. They’re just people ranting away, lost in their little bubbles of reality, steeped in their own hatred, their own fear and hatred. That’s where it all comes from. Let’s just call it out. Let’s have a public discussion. That’s what movies are supposed to do, you know, you can have a mindless entertainment film that doesn’t affect anybody. I wasn’t interested in that.”

    The “Avatar” director was equally unsparing in his comments about those who don’t accept global warming as fact.

    “That’s right,” Cameron said. “I want to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads.” 

    Turning more serious, he added: “Anybody that is a global-warming denier at this point in time has got their head so deeply up their ass I’m not sure they could hear me.”
    ==========

    Well, no one ever accused Cameron of humility.  Or deep thoughtfulness.  If he wants to believe in deliberately distorted data (so that the flawed models produce the desired outcomes for global warming) so be it.   Glenn Beck, a political adversary of his, is “dangerous”.  I’d keep going, but no one can hear me anyway, because my head is so far up my ass.  According to Cameron, anyway.

    Thank God I never gave him money for Avatar.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    That ass blasting hypocrite needs to gauge out his eye. Global warming is real? Then why the F are you creating high tech movies, emitting a bunch of craptatistic bonus in the form of human waste?
     
    Obviously the Hollywood elite gets to pollute because they are ‘upper echelon’ and have bought ‘offsets’. It’s another construction of injustice between the haves and the have nots. The rich have their Green protections while everybody else gets to ‘sacrifice’ and ‘conserve’ for those that have the offsets necessary to use up the planet’s resources.
     
    All false tenets, when taken to its complete and utter logical consequences, are ultimately self-destructive. The fact that a cowardly, weak, hypocritical movie director thinks he can tell me what is what with his Gaia raping movie and thinks he can also stand on his moral high horse without me breaking both his legs, is another thing entirely.
     

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    Black Liberation Theology is the KKK all over again.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    Coincidentally, the initial form of the KKK, the Democrat violent form, was also the initial form of BLT before it was main streamed.

  • suek

    I’m constantly reminded that writing is a skill.  See…Selwyn Duke manages to say pretty much what I was trying to express – and does it _much_ better and more completely.
     
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/our_problem_is_a_lack_of_healt.html