It’s worth reading this article, about the Obama government’s attack on Bucky Balls and their owner, in conjunction with this letter to the editor (especially in conjunction with the last sentence:
I wrote a lovely post, right here, last night. Cheerfully hit the “publish” button and went to bed — only to wake up this morning to discover that the post not only didn’t get published, it vanished entirely. I’m not sure I can replicate it, but I’ll try.
The point I was trying to make was about the morality that can or should undermine political systems. I’d had a talk with a very mature, thoughtful teen, whose parents raised her to revile capitalism as an evil system that needs to be tempered by big government. I said that it needed to be tempered by morality. I pointed out that Adam Smith came up with his “invisible hand” theory at a highly religiously moral time, when it was inconceivable that any government would exist in a moral vacuum. He knew, of course, that there were hard, cruel people who had no truck with morality, but it was also probably inconceivable to him that there could a paradigm without an overarching moral sense.
Texas booms, I suggested, not just because it’s capitalist, but because it’s in the Bible Belt. China has slave labor, practically slave labor, and tainted goods (melanin in foods, antibiotics in bees, etc.) because it’s capitalism without a moral paradigm. The State has no room for morality and when the state is the only thing Left, morality leaves society.
The next day, I read Darren Jonescu’s scathing indictment of the particular brand of evil that Hillary and Obama exemplify. I’m quoting a lot, but there is a lot more to read, and I urge you to read it all:
In the first months after the Benghazi attack, the most urgent question, and one only rarely asked, was “What were Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton doing during the seven and a half hours between the initial emergency communications from Benghazi and the final American deaths?” A negative answer was provided in February by Leon Panetta: they were not engaging with their subordinates; they were not contacting anyone to discuss options; they were giving no orders for action; they remained entirely uninvolved.
We are left to speculate about the positive answer to that question. Were they sleeping? Curled up by the fire with a good manifesto? Playing poker with Huma and the gang? Practicing jokes for a fundraising speech? Your guess is as good as mine.
And none of these guesses really matter in the end, compared to the looming horror that attends any of thepossibilities, namely this: the president and secretary of state of the most powerful nation on Earth are impervious to shame. They can do — they have done — what you hope you could never do, what you pray your children will never be able to do, what psychologists fill academic journals attempting to explain. They were informed that their countrymen — their appointees — were being attacked, were issuing repeated cries for help, and, if nothing were done to intercede, were likely to be killed. Knowing this, and knowing, further, that they had at their disposal the most powerful military in the world, no risk of personal harm, and many subordinates prepared to leap into action at their word, they blithely walked away from the desperate men pleading for their help, and carried on with whatever they happened to be doing that night. They let other men suffer unto death without lifting a finger to help, or even indicating a moment’s regret for their inaction after the fact.
They demonstrated a cold lack of interest in the suffering of others — not the abstract, theoretical suffering of collective interest groups, such as “the poor” or “gays” or “women,” but the real physical pain and mortal terror-style suffering of individual human beings in mortal crisis.
Walking home one evening, you hear men across the street shouting for help, as they are in the process of being overwhelmed by a gang of thugs. You walk away, unconcerned with their cries or the sounds of bats smacking down on their flesh. You do not call the police or volunteer any assistance. You go to bed and sleep well. The next day, and each subsequent day, you carry on with your life of fun, friends, and self-indulgence, never giving a second thought to the men who died because you did not care to help. If a neighborhood reporter asks you about the crime, you put on your gravest voice and say, “Gosh, that’s so sad; I hope they find the creeps who did it.”
Right. What he said. Both Hillary and Obama claim to have been raised religiously. Hillary showed up for church in her days as First Lady, but doesn’t seem to bother to do so now. Obama gave up the pretense of religion the moment was elected. For both, there are only two Gods: the state and their particular political needs at the moment. Neither has a sense of right or wrong independent of their particular pragmatic concerns at any given time.
I’ve mentioned before a year 2000 movie called The Contender, about an upstanding Democrat woman whom the evil Republicans falsely accuse of group sex to derail her appointment to fill a vacant Vice Presidency. The most interest part of the movie comes when the woman, played by Joan Allen, makes her statement to Congress, a bastion of wholesome Democrats and foul Republicans:
And, Mr. Chairman, I stand for the separation of Church and State, and the reason that I stand for that is the same reason that I believe our forefathers did. It is not there to protect religion from the grasp of government but to protect our government from the grasp of religious fanaticism.
[The Founders could not have made it more clear that Freedom of Religion, which is contained in the First Amendment, protects religion from government, not vice versa. The Amendment's language is unequivocal: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." There's nothing in there mandating that no religious person can serve in Congress or have a say in America's government.]
Now, I may be an atheist, but that does not mean I do not go to church. I do go to church. The church I go to is the one that emancipated the slaves [that would be the Republican sect of the church], that gave women the right to vote, that gave us every freedom that we hold dear. My church is this very Chapel of Democracy that we sit in together, and I do not need God to tell me what are my moral absolutes. I need my heart, my brain, and this church. [And there you have it -- President Obama's creed writ large: "I do not need God to tell me what are my moral absolutes. I need my heart, my brain, and this (Progressive) church.]
In an earlier post, I ranted about the nasty vapidity that characterizes the “posters” my liberal friends put up on Facebook whenever an election draws near. I also mentioned that my conservative friends consistently post more substantive articles and images. This one, from my brother-in-law, manages to be both pithy and substantive. It packs a world of ideas into a picture and two sentences:
I don’t know that I’ve ever seen anything before that so clearly distinguishes the fundamental differences in the premises from which socialists and capitalists operate when they make their political arguments. This poster provides a perfect visual to Winston Churchill’s own epigrammatic statement that “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
This may be Klavan’s most brilliant effort yet:
Obama has been going after traditional American capitalism with a vengeance. He’s graduated far beyond his Joe the Plumber kerfuffle, and his vague murmurings about the fact that it’s possible for people to earn too much (excluding, of course, Obama himself and all his rich friends). With his attacks on Bain, he’s saying straight out that the American way of doing business is evil and should replaced by something more friendly, such as a completely government controlled economy.
I therefore found it tremendously amusing to learn that one of his main bundlers was herself something of an entrepreneur in the old days:
A major Obama campaign fundraiser wrote, directed, and produced a 2004 film titled “I Want To Strip For My Man But I Don’t Know How … Unleashing the Naughty Girl In You!” that instructs “everyday women” how to strip.
Stacii Jae Johnson, who currently serves as special events director in the office of Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed (D) and has bundled between $50,000 and $100,000 for the Obama reelection campaign, is a former Hollywood actress with extensive connections to the film and television industries.
I wonder if sex will still be allowed to sell in the new Obama economy or if everyone will just have to give it away for free, per some government code akin to the health care mandate….
UPDATE: For more serious thoughts about Obama’s attack on capitalism, Jay Cost has (as always) smart things to say.
The New York Times has a long article about Edward Conard, a former Bains partner, who makes the case — a compelling one, I believe — that in America, the wealthy aren’t parasites, they’re economically useful. In a stagnant, agrarian class society, the wealthy simply live at the top, feeding off the poor. In a dynamic marketplace, however, the wealthy don’t simply hoard their money in bags of gold and jewelry. They spend as much as they are able (and, no matter how extravagant they are, it isn’t that much relative to their wealth), and they invest the rest. In addition, because it’s their money, not other people’s money that they are investing, they invest it with an eye to market efficiency and profitability, rather than wasting it on political correctness and drowning it in bureaucracy. It’s that last point that explains why the wealthy better than the government when it comes to creating wealth, not just for themselves, but for others.
Conard spells this out in his new book, Unintended Consequences: Why Everything You’ve Been Told About the Economy Is Wrong. This may be a good vacation read for me.
Does history repeat itself? I fervently hope not.
Ok, I have grudgingly thrown my support behind Mitt Romney. It’s not that I am excited about Romney as a candidate, but I am genuinely excited about the need to get Obama out of office before he does irreversible damage to this country. But, here is where I see a problem:
In one corner, we have a radical Marxist/Progressive, with little to no understanding of human nature and economics, who is on a tear to totally transform society to fit a bankrupt utopian ideology. In the process, he destroys jobs, strips companies of investment capital, destroys human capital, demonizes success, romanticizes failure, takes command of and promptly ruins entire segments of the economy, undermines the Constitution, blatantly disregards the law and does his very best to bankrupt the country while redefining entire segments of the population as dependent wards of the state.
In the other corner, we have a square-jawed, well-coiffed, highly intelligent, erudite and successful businessman who made his mark in an industry demonized and under constant assault by the President. Formerly a Liberal, he now claims to be a Conservative, although large swaths of the Republican party refuse to accept his supposed conversion to conservatism as sincere. He is a nice, rational man who believes in using soft-spoken discourse to sway people and find common ground. Rather than go on a blistering attack in support of the capitalist, free-enterprise economy, he ends up trying to placate the population with his moderation and management credentials, while fending off internal strife within the Republican Party between those that promote strong advocacy of conservative principles and those seeking an accommodationist “middle way”. In many ways, he remains tone deaf to how others perceive him to be and how they react to his awkward choices of words.
This man of whom I speak was Wendell Willkie. He ran against FDR in 1940 and got creamed by 5 million votes. Now, I realize there are many differences between then and now, but take a look at these photos below and please tell me they don’t suggest a spooky echo of the past.
Antisemitism in connection with OWS was a no-brainer. The Left is antisemitic. It has been since Marx. Hitler institutionalized it to deadly effect. Stalin was less methodical than Hitler, but he made Judaism illegal and instituted various pogroms within his own party to drive out, imprison or kill Jews.
No matter how many Jews are on the Left (and Jews are, unforgivably, still drawn there), the Left understands that Judaism in the abstract stands for individualism and justice, two notions antithetical to collectivism. The Left has also historically conflated Jews with capitalism. Jews, of course, aren’t the only capitalists (statistically, they’re only a small percentage of capitalists); they’re just visible capitalists if you’re a Jew hater.
In the coming days and weeks, you’re going to see an increasing number of articles and videos in the conservative media about the increasing antisemitism connected with the Occupy this city and that city. Today, we’ll start with just two: a photo essay from L.A. and a video, which you can see below:
My questions for you: How long do you think it will be before the MSM pays attention? Or, an even better question, do you think the MSM will ever pay attention? Same question[s] regarding leading Democrat politicians, such as Obama, Pelosi and Reid….
Maybe it’s Americans’ innate capitalist instinct — the need to commercialize everything — that is our true bulwark against a Russian or French style revolution. Sadly, though, it’s that same acquisitive quality, the one that sees most American young people grow up as Veruca Salt, that encourages the temporary ravages and inconveniences of publicly staged adolescent temper tantrums. The only bulwark against those tantrums is a culture that actually requires young people to grow up.
Here’s a good example of American imperialism, whereby rich and greedy American billionaires fund the sabotage of democratic institutions in foreign countries to further their own ideological and economic interests.
I read someone today who said that Jesus must have been a socialist, because he didn’t seek profit, which is the hallmark of capitalism. Instead, gave away his time, energy and skills to those who could not pay. Since he didn’t have a profit motive, he must have been a capitalist. QED. It was a classic case of conflating socialism with generosity.
Socialism is, in fact, the opposite of generosity because it removes human morality and decency from the equation. There’s a reason study after study shows that liberals donate less to charity than conservatives do. The liberals have placed themselves entirely in government’s hands: the problem of the poor has become someone else’s problem. The fact that we all pay taxes, which the government uses to fund the poor, isn’t charity, it’s central planning predicated on wealth redistribution.
The Victorians, who were wellsprings of one sentence wisdom, used to say “charity begins at home.” The giving impulse of charity must start within us, as it did within Jesus. In a totalitarian, or even semi-totalitarian (i.e., socialist) state, nothing is allowed to come from within. All goes to and flows from the government.
In a capitalist society, people have the wherewithal to give. And in a healthy capitalist society, they have the moral impulse to give. Jesus wasn’t a socialist. When he said “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s,” he fully understood the separation between our spiritual and moral impulses on the one hand, and the dictates of a state on the other hand. Ideally, the people’s adherence to both Caesar and God is a mutually beneficially system, with a humane state allowing humans to go about their business, and a social and moral structure that encourages those with the most to reach out, without state coercion, to help those with the least.
Believe it or not, in an act of near heroic intellectual prestidigitation, I’m going to explain to you how Little Women, housekeeping, socialism and capitalism are all related. Or at least I’m going to try. Here goes:
One of my all time least favorite movies is the 1994 version of Little Women. It is a beautiful movie, and lovingly done, but it totally fails to “get” the message in Louisa May Alcott’s classic book. In fact, it gets the message topsy-turvey, and that kind of thing irks me.
The wrong moment in the movie, the one that spoiled it for me, is a moment about 2/3 of the way into the movie, when Jo tries to explain to Professor Baehr her father’s philosophy. I can’t find the quotation, and I haven’t seen the movie since it came out, but what Jo said was essentially a fancy version of “follow your bliss.”
Putting aside the fact that “follow your bliss” is not the message behind transcendentalism (although Bronson Alcott did, in fact, use his philosophy as a justification for repeatedly trying to follow his bliss), anyone who has actually read Little Women know that “follow your bliss” is most decidedly not the message in the book. The book’s message is that you must find meaning and purpose in life by serving others.
No, I’m not making this up. In chapter after chapter, with increasing force as the book nears its end, Jo is taught to think beyond her own needs and to sacrifice her hopes and desires to others. Only in that way can she find happiness. Whether Jo struggles with her baser self after Amy destroys her writing (only to learn that Amy is more important than her nascent career), or allows herself to be rude to Aunt March (only to lose the chance for a trip to Europe), the lesson is always the same: Don’t think of yourself. Thank of others.
Only when Jo is forced by her intense love for her dead sister Beth to try to take the latter’s place as the family’s domestic Goddess does Jo find her “happily ever after” — and she does so in the arms of Professor Baehr, who pedantically uses every opportunity to lecture Jo about the beauties and joys of self-abnegation. For Jo, therefore, life’s quality is to be found in appreciating the service of broom and dustpan. By looking to others’ needs, she profits herself.
Right about now, I can hear the good statist asking asking me “How can you be a capitalist if you believe in self-sacrifice? Capitalism is all about greed. It’s only liberals who are willing to give to the general good.” That question is as wrong as the movie was.
Capitalism works only if you find a need and fill it. You have to look outside of yourself to determine what product others will want or what service they will need. You then have to work, and work hard, to provide that product or service for others. If you have correctly read others’ needs, you will be rewarded. In a capitalist system, that reward is money. And in a free nation, you are allowed to keep that money (which, presumably, you will plow back into the capitalist marketplace by buying products or services that some other outward looking person has labored to put in the market).
Capitalism, then, precisely reflects Louisa May Alcott’s philosophy: look to others, serve their needs, and reap the reward. That she was speaking of emotional, not financial, rewards, doesn’t change the underlying paradigm.
Socialism, on the other hand, by allowing people to pass on to the government the responsibility for serving others, is essentially navel gazing. You never have to do anything beyond sitting back and letting the government siphon your pay check, all the while telling yourself “Woo-hoo! This feels really good, because in a completely passive, unthinking, effortless way, I’m serving others.” In reality, you’re doing nothing at all. Your moral contribution is no greater than the cow who automatically produces that milk. It is the farmer who, through his labor and initiative, brings the milk to market, so as to feed the child.
And that, my friends, is why Little Women is, or at least should be, one of the doorways to free market capitalism and individualism.
Cross-posted at Right Wing News