Brain Lemon

Throughout the time I have been involved in politics, I have been told that greed is the exclusive province of conservatives and right-wingers.  The story goes that capitalists would gladly destroy the environment and wreak havoc on society all to fill their pockets with filthy lucre.  Whereas liberals, of course, are generous and compassionate and only seek to help the downtrodden.  This narrative is so imbued in our social consciousness that to your average person uninvolved in politics, it is most likely taken as conventional wisdom.

Yet the current uproar on the left about President Obama’s recent tax cut deal tells us something different.  To be sure, the deal is far from great – the additional thirteen months of unfunded “unemployment” payments are wholly irresponsible.  But in the end, it represents a compromise that I can swallow, though I might need a chaser afterward.  However, to hear liberals complain about it, you’d think Obama had done something drastic like cut a government program or praise Fox News.  Columns and blogs have been livid about Obama’s “betrayal.”  There’s even been talk of a primary challenge.

It is worth it to take a minute here and think about what is precisely the source of said ire.  To put it simply, what has gotten liberals so furious here is not a cut to a desired program, or anything that even affects their daily lives.  It is the fact that taxes are NOT going up on the rich.  So wedded to the class warfare mindset are these folks that they become irate when the government decides to steal less from upper-class Americans.  It’s a concept that most people can’t understand – why does someone even care so much about how much is taken from those better off?  Can’t they just be happy with what they have instead of always envying others?

The answer comes down to two simple human concepts – greed and control.  It is nothing more or less than rank greed that compels a person to take pleasure in the forced robbery of his countrymen for the benefit of his preferred interest group.  And it is nothing other than need for control and lust for power that drives someone to view tax cuts as a “giveaway” or “bonus,” as I discussed in my column at Pundit League earlier this week.  The people who talk this way all have a severe case of wannabe tyranny; their ideal world is one where government is massive and all-encompassing, doling out money and rights as it chooses.

The perfect example of this comes in this column by E.J. Dionne, Jr. at the Washington Post.  One line that I found particularly galling was this throwaway sentence:

Other liberals would go along if the estate tax cut could be made less munificent.

Perhaps E.J. did not pass English class, but “munificence” in my vocabulary means “generosity”.  It naturally requires that you OWN something that you can be generous with it.  Which is exactly how liberals like he and many others view your money – it is naturally theirs, and they have the right to take as much of it as they want, even stealing the already-taxed, hard-earned wealth you spend your whole life accumulating upon your demise.

It seems, then, that when we talk about greed – the all-consuming need to get more and more, consequences be damned – that there is one group in this country that exemplifies it consummately.  That is the liberals and other statists who view all control and money as theirs to hand out.  For me, as a capitalist, I long only to keep my justly earned money and to build a better future for myself and my future family.  I do not desire others’ property that they legitimately worked for.  Yet I’m supposedly the greedy one?

UPDATE: It seems the Democrats are at it again, larding up the tax compromise with pork.  And a few Republicans are playing the game as well.  I can’t express how sick I am of this stuff.  If the crap sandwich also comes with a side of metal shards, I say Republicans torpedo the whole thing.  The time for these corrupt games is over.

Anyone who regularly subjects themselves to columns by Tom Friedman at the New York Times knows what to expect – childish reasoning, adoration for totalitarian control in China, quixotic obsession with everything “green,” and general dislike for the fact that anyone dares oppose the Democrats.  Friedman, like his colleague Paul Krugman, has never met a government project or spending initiative he did not support.  Yet his dislike for democracy extends even beyond Krugman’s.  He seems genuinely annoyed by the fact that we even HAVE a free society.

In this light, today’s column should come as no surprise.  In it, Friedman attempts to write what he feels would be a realistic leaked “cable” from the Chinese Embassy in the US back to its masters in the People’s Republic.  Within a few sentences he demonstrates the sheer ignorance he possesses.  First, he bemoans the fact that Americans dare complain about being groped and molested by government agents.  His frustrations then continue to include the opposition of some Republicans to the new START treaty, which apparently is so fundamental to American security that Congress is waiting until the last possible minute to consider it.  Next, he whines about the fact that we actually have free elections where candidates can raise and spend money and, on occasion, say things that aren’t true.

But Friedman is just getting started, because just in the next paragraph, he goes on to kvetch about how bad Amtrak is, as if America and China have exactly the same need and practical use for high-speed rail.  And then of course comes those darn dropped cell phone calls, because this is a surefire way to measure the greatness of a nation.  After all, I’m sure any rational person would come to the conclusion that Zambia is a more advanced society because their cellular network is allegedly superior.

And no condescending liberal column would be complete without continuing the fiction that Americans are just ignorant, unworldly rubes who sit inside their shacks cleaning their guns without daring to learn about the outside world.  This nonsense has been disproven thoroughly so it’s hardly worth the time to do so, so no point bothering.  Yet it is not the end of Friedman’s gibberish.  After spending a paragraph complaining about our presence in Afghanistan (which, of course, liberals supported when they were opposing the Iraq War), good old Tom levels the tiresome charge that anyone who questions “climate change” science must be stupid and crazy.  And, of course, against all the wonderful Magical Unicorn Flying Cars powered by Fairy Dust we could all be driving if we’d just support cap and trade.

Which all raises the question – why does Tom Friedman still live here and not in China?

Being accustomed to the nature of political discourse, it takes a lot to shock me.  Politics often brings out passion in people, and sometimes that passion gets carried away.  Those on both sides can be guilty of this.  But it seems to me there is an important difference between the left and right.  While conservative types can certainly go too far (see birthers) I have never observed the kind of sheer callousness that seems widespread amongst the left.

Today’s example comes from NewsBusters.  A woman tragically decided to take her own life.  This is, most certainly, a very sad occasion and will cause terrible trauma to her family and friends.  On the left, though, what was more important was her occupation – a producer for Fox News.  Because of this, not only was her death not considered tragic – it was considered cause for celebration and something to encourage others do.  As many of us know, Fox News is HATED by the left, for no other reason than it provides a platform for right-of-center opinion.  This hatred is so intense that even a peripheral attachment to it is reason for someone to not receive even the barest empathy.

If this were the only example, we could leave it at this, but sadly it is not.  Over the years there have been numerous examples of leftists exhibiting a truly disturbing lack of basic humanity regarding their political opponents.  This includes frequently wishing for their deaths, wishing them ill, and demonizing viciously.  Again, conservatives can be nasty too, but never to this level.  One has to ask – what happens to a person that makes them feel that way against someone who simply disagrees with them?

I think the answer lies in an important distinction. While libertarians and conservatives generally tend to view liberals as OPPONENTS to be defeated, the other side tends to view us as ENEMIES.  To a true liberal, the forces of the right are not simply people who disagree, but evil people that deserve to be personally harmed.  It is rare for a liberal to even acknowledge the very existence of valid dissent – such dissent must always be caused by sinister motives, never founded on legitimate thought.

All of this is important to keep in mind when dealing with a full-fledged progressive.  You’re not dealing with someone who wants to debate and discuss, to be questioned and reasoned with.  You’re dealing with someone who, once they finds out where your views lie, thinks of you as sub-human and detestable.  If you happen to be associated with a right-leaning network, group, etc., don’t expect even basic decency from the left.  They are simply disturbed people, and it’s simply not worth the time and effort to argue with them.  They don’t want to learn.

I’m used to Keith Olbermann being a fiery, partisan figure.  I’ve even grown accustomed to him making a number of very nasty statements.  He clearly has his point of view, and a small but dedicated group of followers.  But apparently, on last night’s broadcast Keith felt as if he needed to take his rhetoric to a whole new level.

I really don’t know what to say about this, other than stating the obvious.  It is a sad commentary on the state of political discourse in this country that this type of thing is even pondered.  As Joe Scarborough tweeted in response last night, “It is no longer enough to simply disagree with someone. These days some feel the need to call opponents evil.”  This is indeed true on both sides, but I find this specific incident to be especially egregious.

For one, you can take any one of the insults Olbermann lobs at Brown and take it apart easily.  The accusations of being “homophobic” and “racist” are laughable, yet they have become almost reflexive when liberals talk about those on the right.  As for “teabagging,” that little trope warrants a separate discussion of its own – short story is, it’s a vulgar sexual reference that is the province of adolescents, not adults.  For all of these, they can be forgiven as language that is ugly, but nothing unexpected from those on the left.

But the final part, “supporter of violence against women,” is where this goes from overblown political opinion to near-slander.  There’s nothing at all that even comes CLOSE to supporting this.  This is simply taking things to an entire new level, to the point of actually accusing a politician of being PRO-RAPE.  I cannot see any way that this can even be remotely considered a legitimate criticism.

Does Keith actually believe Scott Brown is in favor of women being violated?  No one can know other than him.  But one fact does stand out to me – this man is very popular among liberals.  They watch him daily and for them, this type of thing is basically normal.  The right also has its more fervent members, though I don’t know if any of them ever accused an opponent of supporting rape.  If they have, then they should be condemned too.  But at least in the case of Mr. Olbermann, discourse has truly sunk to a new low.

I’m waiting for mainstream liberals to denounce this.  Something tells me I’ll be waiting for a while.