An Oscar for the tax man?
As
Hollywood's annual orgy of self-congratulation, the Academy Awards
ceremony, is warming up in the wings, Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit has
penned a valuable WSJ op-ed
detailing the enormous tax breaks lavished on American film production.
Make no mistake, these are special interest tax breaks, and the fat cats
benefitting just happen to be among the most self-righteous liberals
posing as advocates of the little guy. Hypocrisy on steroids.
To kick off his piece, Reynolds aptly cites über-populist Eva Longoria:
To kick off his piece, Reynolds aptly cites über-populist Eva Longoria:
At the Democratic National Convention last year, actress Eva Longoria called for higher taxes on America's rich. Her take: "The Eva Longoria who worked at Wendy's flipping burgers-she needed a tax break. But the Eva Longoria who works on movie sets does not."
Actually, nowadays an Eva Longoria who flipped burgers would probably qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit and get a check from the government rather than pay taxes. It's the movie set where she works these days that may well be getting the tax break.The size of the tax breaks and subsidies received by film making special interests is astounding:
About $1.5 billion in tax credits and exemptions, grants, waived fees and other financial inducements went to the film industry in 2010, according to data analyzed by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Politicians like to offer this largess because they get photo-ops with celebrities, but the economic payoff is minuscule.Equally astounding are the boondoggles associated with start-struck governors and state legislatures:
Sometimes it is even worse, as demonstrated by Michigan's effort, begun under former Gov. Jennifer Granholm, to woo the motion picture industry with an expensive state-of-the-art studio facility built on the site of a former General Motors GM +2.26% factory in Pontiac. State leaders ballyhooed the plan as a way of moving from old-style industry to new.
Despite tens of millions of dollars in state investment, the promised 3,000-plus jobs didn't appear. As the Detroit Free Press reported last year, the studio employed only 15-20 people. That isn't boffo. That's a bust. The studio has defaulted on interest payments on state-issued bonds, and the guarantors-the state's already stressed pension funds-may wind up holding the bag. "In retrospect, it was a mistake," conceded Robert Kleine, the former state treasurer who signed off on the plans in 2010.It is time for Hollywood to take a big dose of its liberal medicine and end the fat cat subsidies states have been doling out. But don't count on any self-reflection at the Oscars®. Derisive laughter is the appropriate response to Hollywood hypocrisy.
NYC Bans 2-Liter Bottles Of Soda With Pizza Delivery
If you get bottle service at a city nightclub or restaurant, you
cannot also get a carafe of cranberry juice like the one hostess Maggie
is serving up here at Le Souk Harem in the West Village. Tonic water and
other beverages are also limited, even though they are only used as
mixers.
The carafes in which mixers are typically served hold 32 ounces, and
the most common mixers — sodas, cranberry juice and tonic water — will
be limited. Only water and 100 percent juice will be unlimited.
“Oh, my God. Seriously?” said Lamia Sunti, owner of the swanky West
Village club Le Souk Harem. “It’s not like one person is going to be
drinking the whole carafe. It’s silly.”
The rules are hard to unravel.
Alcoholic drinks and diet sodas are not subject to the ban, nor are
fruit smoothies if they don’t have added sweetener, or coffee drinks and
milkshakes if made with 50 percent milk. But what about drinks with small amounts of added sugar? Vendors must
determine if the beverages have more than 3.125 calories per ounce.
But they should double-check their math: Violations cost $200 each.
Take a big gulp, New York: Hizzoner is about to give you a pop.Nanny Bloomberg unleashes his ban on large sodas on March 12 — and there are some nasty surprises lurking for hardworking families.
Say goodbye to that 2-liter bottle of Coke with your pizza delivery,
pitchers of soft drinks at your kid’s birthday party and some
bottle-service mixers at your favorite nightclub.
They’d violate Mayor Bloomberg’s new rules, which prohibit eateries
from serving or selling sugary drinks in containers larger than 16
ounces.
Bloomberg’s soda smackdown follows his attacks on salt, sugar, trans fat, smoking and even baby formula.
Angel Chevrestt
LESS SODA, MORE DOUGH: If you order a pizza, you cannot get a large
bottle of soda delivered with it. Already, Domino’s locations across the
city are doing away with 1 and 2 liter bottles of soda, deliveryman
Philippe Daniba says. They’ll sell smaller bottles instead — costing you
more money and increasing plastic waste.
The city Health Department last week began sending brochures to
businesses that would be affected by the latest ban, including
restaurants, bars and any “food service” establishment subject to letter
grades.
And merchants were shocked to see the broad sweep of the new rules.
“It’s not fair. If you’re gonna tell me what to do, it’s no good,”
said Steve DiMaggio of Caruso’s in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn. “It’s gonna
cost a lot more.”
And consumers, especially families, will soon see how the rules will
affect their wallets — forcing them to pay higher unit prices for
smaller bottles.
Typically, a pizzeria charges $3 for a 2-liter bottle of Coke. But
under the ban, customers would have to buy six 12-ounce cans at a total
cost of $7.50 to get an equivalent amount of soda.
“I really feel bad for the customers,” said Lupe Balbuena of World Pie in Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn.
Domino’s on First Avenue and 74th Street on the Upper East Side is
doing away with its most popular drink sizes: the 20-ounce and 2-liter
bottles.
“We’re getting in 16-ounce bottles — and that’s all we’re going to sell,” a worker said. He said the smaller bottles will generate more revenue for the restaurant but cost consumers more. It will also trash more plastic into the environment.
Deliveryman Philippe Daniba said he had brought countless 2-liter
bottles of soda to customers over his 19 years at the restaurant. The
ban, he said, “doesn’t make sense.”
Industry-group officials agreed. “It’s ludicrous,” said Robert Bookman, a lawyer for the New York City
Hospitality Alliance. “It’s a sealed bottle of soda you can buy in the
supermarket. Why can’t they deliver what you can get in the
supermarket?”
Families will get pinched at kid-friendly party places, which will
have to chuck their plastic pitchers because most hold 60 ounces — even
though such containers are clearly intended for more than one person.
Changes will be made at the Frames bowling alley in Times Square,
where 26-ounce pitchers are served at kids’ parties, said manager Ayman
Kamel.
“We’re going to try to get creative,” he said, noting drinks with 100 percent juice are exempt from the ban.
“We’re figuring out a way to have freshly squeezed juice for the
birthday parties. We might have to raise the price about a dollar or
so.”
Dallas BBQ at 1265 Third Ave. will retire its 60-ounce pitchers and 20-ounce glasses, manager Daisy Reyes said.“We have to buy new glasses,” she said. “We’re in the process.”
http://gopthedailydose.com/2013/02/24/nyc-bans-2-liter-bottles-of-soda-with-pizza-delivery/
Someone Tell President Obama: American Bridges Aren't "Crumbling"
President Obama has been on a blitz while pushing what seems to be an evergreen priority for Democrats these days: "infrastructure investment." In his State of the Union speech, President Obama spoke of Merica's "deteriorating roads and bridges" and proposed what he called a "Fix-It-First" program that would see the government hire construction workers to work on America's infrastructure.This worry is overblown. The Reason Foundation put out a report this week that found America's infrastructure is in fine shape, though there's certainly work to be done.
All 50 states lowered their highway fatality rates from 1989 to 2008 and 40 states reduced their percentages of deficient bridges during that time. Nationwide, the number of deficient bridges in the country fell from 37.8 percent of all bridges in 1989 to 23.7 percent in 2008.Moreover, if America's infrastructure is in bad shape, it's not because of a lack of government spending. Reason Foundation found that inflation-adjusted infrastructure spending has grown by 60% in the last twenty years despite the government controlling roughly the same amount of road mileage.
The Reason Foundation study tracks spending per mile on state-owned roads and measures road performance in seven categories: miles of urban Interstate highways in poor pavement condition, miles of rural Interstates in poor condition, congestion on urban Interstates, deficient bridges, highway fatalities, rural primary roads in poor condition and the number of rural primary roads flagged as too narrow.
It's popular to cite th World Economic Forum rankings of world infrastructure, but misleading. The U.S. was ranked 16th in infrastructure according to the WEF, behind similar countries like Canada. But the top countries in the world for infrastructure are small and dense - those of the Netherlands and Singapore, for example. Among the world's largest countries, the U.S. stands behind only Canada, and among the world's most populous countries is bested by France, Germany and Japan. U.S. infrastructure certainly comes out well compared to the rest of the European Union, as Charles Lane pointed out.
There are certainly things that the federal government can and should do in the area of infrastructure investment. Last year, Ed Glaeser laid out a positive agenda - because President Obama at the time was on a previous pro-infrastrucutre blitz - for infrastructure investment that would focus on market reforms and decentralization that would fix what needs to be fixed while staying humble in scope.
LET USERS PAY: In the early days, we paid for infrastructure, such as the Erie Canal and the Brooklyn Bridge, by charging tolls. That was easy to do, as demand for these improvements was enormous. But our fondness for big projects gradually and dangerously moved us away from this ideal. The Highway System is meant to be funded with gas taxes paid into the Highway Trust Fund, but funding formulas mean that the taxes each state pays into the fund rarely match the money received.Despite President Obama's dire warnings, American infrastructure is not "crumbling." Infrastructure investment isn't a magic wand for economic sluggishness. There are positive steps in a federal infrastructure reform agenda that can be undertaken, but President Obama's dire warnings about the decrepit state of American infrastructure aren't true and aren't helping move the conversation forward.
The stimulus delivered a dollop of highway spending provided with general tax dollars, and the Congressional Budget Office projects that the Trust Fund will be broke by 2014. Yet Congress is now promoting a vast new road spending bill. The budget the president presented yesterday supports paying for infrastructure with “current user-financed mechanisms,” but also proposes tapping “part of the savings from ending the war in Iraq and winding down operations in Afghanistan,” which just means using general tax revenue to pay for highways.
DE-FEDERALIZE TRANSPORT SPENDING: Most forms of transport infrastructure overwhelmingly serve the residents of a single state. Yet the federal government has played an outsized role in funding transportation for 50 years. Whenever the person paying isn’t the person who benefits, there will always be a push for more largesse and little check on spending efficiency. Would Detroit’s People Mover have ever been built if the people of Detroit had to pay for it? We should move toward a system in which states and localities take more responsibility for the infrastructure that serves their citizens.
INSTITUTIONALIZE MAINTENANCE FUNDING: Throughout the world, political leaders love to cut ribbons on new projects, but they hate the hard work of maintaining older infrastructure. The natural result is that bridges become unsafe and highways are riddled with potholes. As I suspect that states and localities will always do too little to invest in maintenance, this would be a good place to redirect federal spending.
Instead of funding new projects, the Highway Trust Fund could instead become solely a road and bridge maintenance fund. Obama’s 2013 budget moves in this direction by espousing a “fix-it-first policy,” but that isn’t the same as tying future tax revenue to needed maintenance.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2013/02/23/someone-tell-president-obama-american-bridges-arent-crumbling-n1518816
Introducing, 'The 29'ers'
In the Brave New World wrought by Obamacare, there are some truly bizarre effects being felt by individuals and businesses as we prepare for the implementation of the the act.The Wall Street Journal points out a doozy:
Here's a trend you'll be reading more about: part-time "job sharing," not only within firms but across different businesses.
It's already happening across the country at fast-food restaurants, as employers try to avoid being punished by the Affordable Care Act. In some cases we've heard about, a local McDonalds has hired employees to operate the cash register or flip burgers for 20 hours a week and then the workers head to the nearby Burger King or Wendy's to log another 20 hours. Other employees take the opposite shifts.
Welcome to the strange new world of small-business hiring under ObamaCare. The law requires firms with 50 or more "full-time equivalent workers" to offer health plans to employees who work more than 30 hours a week. (The law says "equivalent" because two 15 hour a week workers equal one full-time worker.) Employers that pass the 50-employee threshold and don't offer insurance face a $2,000 penalty for each uncovered worker beyond 30 employees. So by hiring the 50th worker, the firm pays a penalty on the previous 20 as well.
These employment cliffs are especially perverse economic incentives. Thousands of employers will face a $40,000 penalty if they dare expand and hire a 50th worker. The law is effectively a $2,000 tax on each additional hire after that, so to move to 60 workers costs $60,000.
A 2011 Hudson Institute study estimates that this insurance mandate will cost the franchise industry $6.4 billion and put 3.2 million jobs "at risk." The insurance mandate is so onerous for small firms that Stephen Caldeira, president of the International Franchise Association, predicts that "Many stores will have to cut worker hours out of necessity. It could be the difference between staying in business or going out of business." The franchise association says the average fast-food restaurant has profits of only about $50,000 to $100,000 and a margin of about 3.5%.
Because other federal employment regulations also kick in when a firm crosses the 50 worker threshold, employers are starting to cap payrolls at 49 full-time workers. These firms have come to be known as "49ers." Businesses that hire young and lower-skilled workers are also starting to put a ceiling on the work week of below 30 hours. These firms are the new "29ers." Part-time workers don't have to be offered insurance under ObamaCare.What makes this so troublesome for liberals is that there really isn't a fix that Congress can effect. If they lower the threshold to 20 or 30 employees who must be insured, they will drive thousands of companies out of business. Even at 50 workers, some firms are going to have to cut their workforce to below that threshold or risk shutting their doors.
The law of unintended consequences strikes again.
Obama threatening veterans’ gun rights
In an apparent threat to Second Amendment rights, some American military veterans have received a letter from the Veterans Administration warning that their competency to handle their own affairs is under review, and if determined by government bureaucrats to be “incompetent,” they would be barred from possessing weapons.The issue is being raised by the United States Justice Foundation, which defends civil and religious rights.
In a statement on the organization’s website, Executive Director Michael Connelly said his organization is pursuing a Freedom of Information Act demand to the Department of Veterans Affairs to “force them to disclose the criteria they are using to place veterans on the background check list that keeps them from exercising their Second Amendment rights.”
“Then we will take whatever legal steps are necessary to protect our American warriors,” he wrote.
He said he’s been approached by a significant number of veterans who have received letters from the VA.
An image of a letter dated Dec. 20, 2012, has been posted online at Red Flag News.
The letter states that the Department of Veterans Affairs has “received” information about the veteran that “because of your disabilities you may need help in handling your Department of Affairs (VA) benefits.”
However, it provides no details other that the information was “a report from Portland VA Medical Center.”
“The evidence indicates that you are not able to handle your VA benefit payments because of a physical or mental condition,” the letter warns. “We propose to rate you incompetent for VA purposes. This means we must decide if you are able to handle your VA benefit payments. We will base our decision on all the evidence we already have including any other evidence you sent to us.”
Completion of the incompetency determination means that a “fiduciary” would be appointed to manage the veteran’s payments.
The VA also warns: “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both.
”
The letter then offers the veteran an opportunity to “request a personal hearing within 30 days from the date at the top of this letter to present evidence or argument on any important point in your claim.”
But it says the VA will not pay some of the expenses of the hearing.
“If we don’t hear from you within the next 60 days, we will assume you have no additional evidence and do not want a hearing. After those 60 days we will make our decision using the evidence we already have and tell you our decision.”
The letter is signed by K. Kalama, Veterans Service Center manager in the Oregon Department of Veterans Affairs.
The letter, Connelly wrote, sounds “like something right from a documentary on a tyrannical dictatorship somewhere in the world.”
“Yet, as I write this I have a copy of such a letter right in front of me,” he said. ‘It is being sent by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of America’s heroes.”
Connelly noted the letter “provides no specifics on the reasons for the proposed finding of incompetency; just that is based on a determination by someone in the VA.”
“In every state in the United States no one can be declared incompetent to administer their own affairs without due process of law and that usually requires a judicial hearing with evidence being offered to prove to a judge that the person is indeed incompetent,” he explained.
“This is a requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that states that no person shall ‘be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.’
“Obviously, the Department of Veterans Affairs can’t be bothered by such impediments as the Constitution, particularly since they are clearly pushing to fulfill one of Obama’s main goals, the disarming of the American people. Janet Napolitano has already warned law enforcement that some of the most dangerous among us are America’s heroes, our veterans, and now according to this letter from the VA they can be prohibited from buying or even possessing a firearm because of a physical or mental disability,” Connelly wrote.
Officials with the Department of Veterans Affairs did not respond to a WND request for comment.
Connelly argued there “are no clear criteria for the VA to declare a veteran incompetent.”
“It can be the loss of a limb in combat, a head injury, a diagnosis of PTSD, or even a soldier just telling someone at the VA that he or she is depressed over the loss of a buddy in combat. In none of these situations has the person been found to be a danger to themselves or others. If that was the case than all of the Americans who have suffered from PTSD following the loss of a loved one or from being in a car accident would also have to be disqualified from owning firearms. It would also mean that everyone who has ever been depressed for any reason should be disarmed. In fact, many of the veterans being deprived of their rights have no idea why it is happening,” Connelly said.
He said the issue raises another huge question.
“We have to ask who will be next. If you are receiving a Social Security check will you get one of these letters? Will the government declare that you are incompetent because of your age and therefore banned from firearm ownership. It certainly fits in with the philosophy and plans of the Obama administration,” he wrote.
WND previously reported on the issue of PTSD and veterans. It was after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals excoriated the Department of Veterans Affairs for its “unchecked incompetence” in dealing with a flood of PTSD, depression and similar conditions, taking an average of four years to provide veterans their mental health benefits, and often taking weeks to get a suicidal vet his first appointment.
http://gopthedailydose.com/2013/02/22/obama-threatening-veterans-gun-rights/
Liberal astroturf group offering $9 to $11 per hour to join its gun-control campaign
The liberal organization Progressive USA Voters, which is housed in the same progressive Denver office building as a chapter of the infamous left-wing astroturf group ProgressNow, is offering an hourly wage of between $9 and $11 to join its gun-control campaign in Chicago, according to a flyer that was photographed and posted to Reddit Friday.“Join the Campaign to Stop Gun Violence” reads the flyer, which also notes, “Hourly Wage: $9-11/hr.”
Progressive USA Voters is specifically focused on the April 2013
special election for Jesse Jackson Jr.’s vacated House seat in Illinois’
Second Congressional District. The group is targeting Democratic
primary candidate Debbie Halvorson, who accepted more than $10,000 from
the National Rifle Association, according to the Progressive USA Voters website.
Halvorson is running against former state representative Robin Kelly, who has received the endorsement of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s super PAC, Independence USA, which is also attacking Halverson on the issue of Gun Control.
“Progressive USA will be going door-to-door in this important race in the coming weeks in order to educate voters about Halvorson’s record,” according to the group’s website.
Progressive USA Voters is a project of Progressive USA, which claims to “advocate for sensible policy solutions, hold our nation’s elected officials accountable for their actions and take head-on the flawed policies and hypocrisy of the radical right.” The group does not list its staff or directors on its website, and does not disclose its donors to the Federal Election Commission.
Progressive USA is based in Denver, Colorado, at 1536 Wynkoop Street, according to its Facebook page. The building at 1536 Wynkoop Street is owned by the Alliance for Sustainable Colorado. The building, known as the “Alliance Center,” houses various nonprofit organizations, including ProgressNow Colorado, a chapter of the notorious national left-wing astroturf organization ProgressNow.
“The building creates synergies and fosters partnerships that accelerate progress on issues” according to the Alliance for Sustainable Colorado, which has received grant funding from the liberal Tides Foundation and counts the Center for American Progress as a partner.
Progressive USA is located in suite 100 of the “Alliance Center.” ProgressNow Colorado is located in suite 203.
ProgressNow has funded numerous front groups to influence elections in disparate regions. The group’s state affiliate, ProgressMass, ran an attack campaign against former Massachusetts Republican Sen. Scott Brown during his 2012 race against Elizabeth Warren. The group’s advisers include Media Matters founder David Brock, MoveOn.org board president Eli Pariser, and Center for American Progress chairman John Podesta.
The extent and nature of the “synergies” created between ProgressNow and Progressive USA within the “Alliance Center” remains unclear.
Progressive USA Voters contributed $52,026.64 to Democrat Patrick Murphy’s Florida congressional campaign in the last election cycle, and $229.03 to President Barack Obama.
Halvorson is running against former state representative Robin Kelly, who has received the endorsement of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s super PAC, Independence USA, which is also attacking Halverson on the issue of Gun Control.
“Progressive USA will be going door-to-door in this important race in the coming weeks in order to educate voters about Halvorson’s record,” according to the group’s website.
Progressive USA Voters is a project of Progressive USA, which claims to “advocate for sensible policy solutions, hold our nation’s elected officials accountable for their actions and take head-on the flawed policies and hypocrisy of the radical right.” The group does not list its staff or directors on its website, and does not disclose its donors to the Federal Election Commission.
Progressive USA is based in Denver, Colorado, at 1536 Wynkoop Street, according to its Facebook page. The building at 1536 Wynkoop Street is owned by the Alliance for Sustainable Colorado. The building, known as the “Alliance Center,” houses various nonprofit organizations, including ProgressNow Colorado, a chapter of the notorious national left-wing astroturf organization ProgressNow.
“The building creates synergies and fosters partnerships that accelerate progress on issues” according to the Alliance for Sustainable Colorado, which has received grant funding from the liberal Tides Foundation and counts the Center for American Progress as a partner.
Progressive USA is located in suite 100 of the “Alliance Center.” ProgressNow Colorado is located in suite 203.
ProgressNow has funded numerous front groups to influence elections in disparate regions. The group’s state affiliate, ProgressMass, ran an attack campaign against former Massachusetts Republican Sen. Scott Brown during his 2012 race against Elizabeth Warren. The group’s advisers include Media Matters founder David Brock, MoveOn.org board president Eli Pariser, and Center for American Progress chairman John Podesta.
The extent and nature of the “synergies” created between ProgressNow and Progressive USA within the “Alliance Center” remains unclear.
Progressive USA Voters contributed $52,026.64 to Democrat Patrick Murphy’s Florida congressional campaign in the last election cycle, and $229.03 to President Barack Obama.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/24/liberal-astroturf-group-offering-9-to-11-per-hour-to-join-its-gun-control-campaign/#ixzz2LqhXY9UD
Left wing blueprint exposed
Progressives,
operating through tax-exempt foundations and union affiliates, have a
detailed plan in place to swing North Carolina blue through personal
attacks demonizing leading Republican politicians. They have been
exposed by Matt Vespa of the PJ Tattler, in an account
that should make your blood boil, particularly because of all the
taxpayer subsidies, and the media cooperation they will get in this
mission.
The war of ideas is alive and well. In North Carolina, it's taken a vicious turn,with progressives targeting the state's Republican leadership and Governor Pat McCrory, who was elected in 2012. Spearheading this effort is a 501 (c)(3) group known as BluePrint NC, which, according to their website:
Vespa provides actual documents and organization charts to show how this political operation will work, including this gem form a leaked memo:is a partnership of public policy, advocacy, and grassroots organizing nonprofits dedicated to achieving a better, fairer, healthier North Carolina through the development of an integrated communications and civic engagement strategy. Ultimately, Blueprint aims to influence state policy in NC so that residents of the state benefit from more progressive policies such as better access to health care, higher wages, more affordable housing, a safer, cleaner environment, and access to reproductive health services.
"The most effective way to mitigate the worst legislation is to weaken our opponents' ability to govern by crippling their leaders (McCrory, Tillis, Berger, etc...)" the memo reads, referring to the governor, House Speaker Thom Tillis and Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger.
The memo goes on to describe a "potential two-year vision" during which the groups would "eviscerate the leadership and weaken their ability to govern."Read and learn, and then start applying the lessons to our own work, while being vigilant for abuses of the tax code by the left.
Three Reasons Conservatives are Losing the Battle for America
1. The Electorate
The Republicans may as well stop their soul-searching and look at the reality of the Democrat electorate. In addition to those Republican voters who stayed home on Election Day, the hard-core (so-called) progressives, the inadequate Republican ground game, and those who pay little or no federal tax and are happy to elect those who promise to take larger sums from those who DO pay, there's a more profound and possibly intractable problem. From my countless discussions with Democrats/liberals, it seems clear that many, many voters - we will never be sure of their numbers - neither hear, nor are interested in hearing, the stance of conservatives or Republicans. I'm often incredulous at the self-satisfied political ignorance and gullibility of successful, otherwise high-functioning and intellectually curious Democrats. The range and depth of their ignorance regarding easily ascertainable facts is astounding ("No, President Obama has NOT increased the deficit: that's a lie! For your information, President Obama has spent less than any President in history!"); and many, in my experience, cite the New York Times as their irrefutable source of information, with phrases like: "The Times didn't mention it so it can't be true or relevant...."
For these people, it really doesn't matter what conservatives or Republicans think or say: they won't hear it! Republican positions are totally lost - unheard and meaningless - to a growing number of the electorate, including huge swaths of highly-educated and effective leaders in society. It would be understating the issue to note that the Republican/conservative "brand" has been sullied - but it begins to convey the nature of the problem: it's more accurate to say that the Republican/conservative brand has been effectively nullified for many people. For a growing number of voters, it doesn't matter what Republicans say: they have bought into the idea - nurtured by the press, educators at every level, and almost the entire entertainment industry - that Republicans are the "bad guys". Furthermore, and possibly more disturbing, is the fact that this apparently mushrooming group of voters is largely unaware of and unconcerned about their stance.
Imagine trying to discuss the strengths of Judaism with members of the Hitler Youth, or the weaknesses of Mao's Great Leap Forward with a cadre of the Red Guard: would your ideas be heard and rationally considered? Or suppose you were running for office and these youngsters could vote: would they vote for you? When you discovered that you'd lost their vote and consequently an election, would you then ask yourself, for example, whether the ideas or nature of Judaism were at fault for your inability to persuade them?
That's about the level of it with much of the U.S. electorate: they've totally bought into the liberal stance - which these days includes refusing to hear or even consider ideas of the blacklisted opposition - and there's no indication that they'll be coming back to a more rational stance.
They proclaim themselves compassionate but really don't care if the "bad guys" are emotionally or physically hurt. And there's a typical structure to their answers in response to interrogations about their reputed compassion: first the distancing phrase, then the conjunction, and finally the seemingly reasonable explanation. (A couple typical answers: "Of course nobody would condone such violent behavior but I also don't hear too many people upset about his absence"...or... "We should never turn to violence as an answer but who can blame them for getting upset".) An example to illustrate the point: although You may recall that a couple Republicans were savagely beaten in apparent political violence in New Orleans after a Republican fund raiser in 2010, I can guarantee you that essentially none of your Democrat friends do.
To call these people "zealots" would be overstating their political energy, but calling them "partisans" is somehow off point. Many of them, but for their political stance, would be considered bright or knowledgeable, as I'm sure were many of the Hitler Youth, the Red Guard and members of like organizations, who were often specially selected for their academic, athletic and social skills
.
While some of these people may have limited political knowledge, they all know something really, really well: Republicans and conservatives are bad guys, should not be listened to, and will make everything worse. If you're a Republican or a conservative, it doesn't matter what you say because, if it comes out of your mouth, it's wrong.
When I was young, it was a matter of pride that we'd try to familiarize ourselves with both sides of an argument: my teachers mostly attempted to present alternative views fairly and encouraged us to research opposing political stances independently. Now educators at every level mostly seem to expect adherence to the liberal/Democrat position, and both challenge (even threaten) those who disagree, and create an environment where alternative views and their proponents are mocked (or worse).
So Republicans and conservatives, I'd say the same thing to you that I'd say to a Rabbi rejected by the Hitler Youth: if you think that the Democrats heard, digested and rejected your arguments in the last election, you're deluded. Your brand is so soiled that you will not be heard by this generation...short of a calamity on the order of the one that befell the Nazis. Your misreading of the times and the situation is startling. You look like bewildered youngsters trying to please a psychotic mother, looking for cues in an electorate and media that derides and, in many cases, despises you. In terms of convincing the electorate of the good sense of your positions, there may not be workable solutions: but take a first step by facing the truth: you have allowed the culture to drift for decades, and one feature of the drift is the acceptability of determined mindlessness...including the mindless rejection of you and whatever it is that you proclaim. You still have a substantial choir to whom you preach...but probably a larger counter-choir that not only doesn't hear you but aggressively covers its ears when you speak.
2. Media Bias
The fact is that while there has never been a pure news delivery system, it was much, much cleaner 60 years ago. One could have argued the case several decades ago that there was such an entity as "news", but it makes no sense to call these groups "news" organizations anymore. A more sensible approach would be to say that there's hot, warm, cool and cold information, and that the mainstream press and the left are the arbiters of what will be hot, cold, etc. If the press decides that a particular story does not fit their world-view or plan, the story becomes "cold", is ignored and, to the acolytes, doesn't exist. Examples would be The New York Times ignoring the Benghazi story or "Fast and Furious" for extended periods; when they finally reported on these, they had lots of ways, as always, to effect their spin: story placement and flow, leaving out facts that might be inconsistent with their world-view, interviewing those with known sympathy to their stance and then editing the interviews for greatest New-York-Times-style impact. Since so many news organizations and acolytes look to the Times to define worthy/unworthy stories, advance the "proper" spin, etc., much of the country, including many Republicans, believe that they've heard the full story after having read The Times (and The Washington Post). I've been told several times - although it always amazes me - that a particular event "never happened"...with the explanation that "The Times didn't mention it...." Because this situation has been in place without effective challenge for so long, it's second-nature to the (so-called) reporters involved in creating and perpetuating it: to most of them, the idea that they have a political slant that finds expression in their news stories would be obviously bogus...not worth wasting a moment pondering.
"What?? Are you claiming that there's a conspiracy among these journalists???" No: it's group-think! Imagine the Jewish fellow noted above speaking to a Nazi Youth club and later finding that essentially all of them had a negative reaction to his presentation. Would that be a conspiracy? Or how about someone identified as a "Petit Bourgeois" delivering a roundly rejected lecture on the benefits of capitalism to a group of Bolsheviks: although they all found his ideas wrong-headed, would their rejection reflect a conspiracy? I don't think so.
Republicans and conservatives: you are playthings of the mainstream media and they can totally have their way with you, no matter your observations or objections. And the most interesting part of living in such a one-sided media environment for so long is that the vast majority of Republicans (and many conservatives) will, like obedient puppies, follow the media lead. The bottom line: you Republicans and conservatives are powerless in defining or moving the debate: the mainstream media along with the liberals and Democrats essentially totally define the issues, the responses to the issues, which events to focus on or ignore, etc. And their chosen topics and slants can be very bizarre indeed. But you have nothing to do with it! You're powerless! Impotent! The sooner you face this fact, the sooner you might find a productive path ahead.
And one other note about the mainstream media: because you Republicans and conservatives are so impotent and because they identify, define and massage (or ignore) the stories consistent with their world view, it stands to reason that anyone can be tarnished and destroyed by them. Anyone!: Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, a reincarnated Jesus Christ, and you and any of your colleagues: it's simply a matter of who is picked out and how thoroughly he or she needs to be destroyed. If the target will cooperate and absent himself or herself, it's often unnecessary - a waste of time and resources - to continue the assault.
Likewise, if the mainstream media and the left decide to ignore a scandal or other situation, for a large percentage of the population - including many who are otherwise well informed and high-functioning - it won't exist: there's essentially nothing that you conservatives and Republicans can do about it. In related fashion, if the left and mainstream media decide to re-route information or assign blame idiosyncratically, their version will quickly become the accepted explanation for a large percentage of the populace. It's why George W. Bush is largely to blame for the mortgage crisis, (supposed) global warming, increased violent crime, persistent racism and all manner of other difficulties. Scapegoats are a beautiful thing for people who don't want to face themselves or grow up and, in a lopsided information system like ours, there is neither a shortage of scapegoats nor a practical limit to the extent of blame that one scapegoat can absorb. If you think that this plum George Bush-Sarah Palin-scapegoat-era is over, think again. And, more to the point, you Republicans and conservatives have nothing whatever to say about it.
So stop with the, "If we'd only nominated" somebody, he or she would be "so much less vulnerable" to attacks than the person we nominated; and stop the, "It's such a shame that he keeps opening his mouth and sticking his foot in it...." If some other person had been nominated, he or she would have been destroyed if he didn't fit the media paradigm: and then you'd be complaining that yet another candidate should have been nominated. Face it, Republicans and conservatives: you have nothing to say about who gets pilloried in the press and who doesn't, or what the issues will be, and there's essentially nothing you can do to change it: all of that is decided by people who disagree with and often despise you. So you may as well stop your automatic genuflections to the liberals/Democrats by beating each other up. (From a distance, though, you have to admit that it must be a gas to be able to call the shots for your opponents...to get them to hop and dance on cue, to self-flagellate, to start fighting with each other or join in the carnage.)
3. Techniques
A third element that makes the position of Republicans and conservatives almost untenable is the range of techniques for destroying them that are accepted by many Americans and the mainstream press. The most effective and destructive technique is so-called "political correctness", a method of silencing those who disagree with a group or party controlling the political agenda: it's a technique that depends on a constant reinforcing dialogue between the media and compliant citizens. Political correctness is a capital political concept because: the participants silently acquiesce to its dictates; it's a self-modulating system where groups of people self-monitor and groom each other into conformity; through unspoken or overt threats of censure, it propagates itself; and, among the willing, it inevitably leads to the control of thought. If we freely restrict our speech to only "allowed" topics, in short order we restrict our thinking as well. In the end there is no more powerful political tool than thought control, which is why mastery and management of information is a central issue in all totalitarian regimes. What has required the overt elimination or forced domination of media outlets in most autocratic regimes has been yielded up easily by our group-think media, who now march along in near lockstep while trumpeting their independence. Political correctness must be a beautiful thing to behold if you're a politician inclined toward domination.
Another technique is the investigation and censure of politicians and groups who don't fit the media or left wing paradigm, while ignoring or manipulating scandalous information on political allies. When potentially damaging information about left wing allies is ignored by the mainstream media, it simply "doesn't exist" to growing numbers of otherwise well-informed acolytes. This is why Sarah Palin is regarded as perhaps the most heinous and hated American politician today to a large portion of the population, while Bill Clinton is lionized and his wife may be the brightest woman in the western world. With enough investigation and diligence, anyone can be destroyed and almost anyone can be elevated. Again, who is destroyed and who idealized is totally within the control of the mainstream media and the left wing: conservatives and Republicans cannot substantially affect these processes because of the nullification of their brand advanced through the press, the entertainment media and educational institutions.
Two elements exacerbate this technique for conservatives and Republicans: the fact that the left wing, because it views itself as having an essential and morally-superior "mission", excuses its unscrupulous destructive strategies (like, for example, essentially inventing and repeating false stories until they become part of the political landscape [such as bogus Tea-Party threats toward Congressmen]; attacking family members of antagonists; somehow "discovering" legitimately sealed information and dropping it over the transoms of friendly media; etc.); and the fact that Republicans and conservatives, so inured to being cogs in the left-wing-driven information system, leap in to play their roles of unwitting enablers in the destruction of their own.
A third technique - another favorite of despotic regimes like the Soviets in Eastern Europe - is "selective violence": physically harmful acts meant to both stop a political opponent and send a message to like-minded potential opponents. This category includes such things as union attacks on Tea Party demonstrations; the arrest, prosecution and imprisonment of the "Coptic Christian" on charges "unrelated" to his film; covert threats toward Chief Justice Roberts by national politicians on the eve of the health care decision; the use of government powers, like repeated, intensive tax audits against political enemies; etc. It must be a comforting and, unfortunately for the body politic, "liberating" position for politicians and left-wing groups to know that no matter how many or how severe their physical or administrative attacks, these will be ignored by the mainstream press and consequently "not exist" for much of the population.
In a word, we are observing the regression of a culture...one that is moving away from sophistication and proudly stepping backward from civilizing attempts. We have seen primitive behavior in our own culture and others: when people look to a label or a skin color as all that need be said about a person; when information from trusted sources of information are grossly biased so only one side is heard or even "exists"; and when physical or administrative violence against people is belittled, laughed at or ignored. It's a cultural regression and, as the unifying, reassuring legal structures and precepts wither, as information sources become untrustworthy, and as physical and administrative violence worsens, it becomes increasingly difficult to reverse.
The Republicans may as well stop their soul-searching and look at the reality of the Democrat electorate. In addition to those Republican voters who stayed home on Election Day, the hard-core (so-called) progressives, the inadequate Republican ground game, and those who pay little or no federal tax and are happy to elect those who promise to take larger sums from those who DO pay, there's a more profound and possibly intractable problem. From my countless discussions with Democrats/liberals, it seems clear that many, many voters - we will never be sure of their numbers - neither hear, nor are interested in hearing, the stance of conservatives or Republicans. I'm often incredulous at the self-satisfied political ignorance and gullibility of successful, otherwise high-functioning and intellectually curious Democrats. The range and depth of their ignorance regarding easily ascertainable facts is astounding ("No, President Obama has NOT increased the deficit: that's a lie! For your information, President Obama has spent less than any President in history!"); and many, in my experience, cite the New York Times as their irrefutable source of information, with phrases like: "The Times didn't mention it so it can't be true or relevant...."
For these people, it really doesn't matter what conservatives or Republicans think or say: they won't hear it! Republican positions are totally lost - unheard and meaningless - to a growing number of the electorate, including huge swaths of highly-educated and effective leaders in society. It would be understating the issue to note that the Republican/conservative "brand" has been sullied - but it begins to convey the nature of the problem: it's more accurate to say that the Republican/conservative brand has been effectively nullified for many people. For a growing number of voters, it doesn't matter what Republicans say: they have bought into the idea - nurtured by the press, educators at every level, and almost the entire entertainment industry - that Republicans are the "bad guys". Furthermore, and possibly more disturbing, is the fact that this apparently mushrooming group of voters is largely unaware of and unconcerned about their stance.
Imagine trying to discuss the strengths of Judaism with members of the Hitler Youth, or the weaknesses of Mao's Great Leap Forward with a cadre of the Red Guard: would your ideas be heard and rationally considered? Or suppose you were running for office and these youngsters could vote: would they vote for you? When you discovered that you'd lost their vote and consequently an election, would you then ask yourself, for example, whether the ideas or nature of Judaism were at fault for your inability to persuade them?
That's about the level of it with much of the U.S. electorate: they've totally bought into the liberal stance - which these days includes refusing to hear or even consider ideas of the blacklisted opposition - and there's no indication that they'll be coming back to a more rational stance.
They proclaim themselves compassionate but really don't care if the "bad guys" are emotionally or physically hurt. And there's a typical structure to their answers in response to interrogations about their reputed compassion: first the distancing phrase, then the conjunction, and finally the seemingly reasonable explanation. (A couple typical answers: "Of course nobody would condone such violent behavior but I also don't hear too many people upset about his absence"...or... "We should never turn to violence as an answer but who can blame them for getting upset".) An example to illustrate the point: although You may recall that a couple Republicans were savagely beaten in apparent political violence in New Orleans after a Republican fund raiser in 2010, I can guarantee you that essentially none of your Democrat friends do.
To call these people "zealots" would be overstating their political energy, but calling them "partisans" is somehow off point. Many of them, but for their political stance, would be considered bright or knowledgeable, as I'm sure were many of the Hitler Youth, the Red Guard and members of like organizations, who were often specially selected for their academic, athletic and social skills
.
While some of these people may have limited political knowledge, they all know something really, really well: Republicans and conservatives are bad guys, should not be listened to, and will make everything worse. If you're a Republican or a conservative, it doesn't matter what you say because, if it comes out of your mouth, it's wrong.
When I was young, it was a matter of pride that we'd try to familiarize ourselves with both sides of an argument: my teachers mostly attempted to present alternative views fairly and encouraged us to research opposing political stances independently. Now educators at every level mostly seem to expect adherence to the liberal/Democrat position, and both challenge (even threaten) those who disagree, and create an environment where alternative views and their proponents are mocked (or worse).
So Republicans and conservatives, I'd say the same thing to you that I'd say to a Rabbi rejected by the Hitler Youth: if you think that the Democrats heard, digested and rejected your arguments in the last election, you're deluded. Your brand is so soiled that you will not be heard by this generation...short of a calamity on the order of the one that befell the Nazis. Your misreading of the times and the situation is startling. You look like bewildered youngsters trying to please a psychotic mother, looking for cues in an electorate and media that derides and, in many cases, despises you. In terms of convincing the electorate of the good sense of your positions, there may not be workable solutions: but take a first step by facing the truth: you have allowed the culture to drift for decades, and one feature of the drift is the acceptability of determined mindlessness...including the mindless rejection of you and whatever it is that you proclaim. You still have a substantial choir to whom you preach...but probably a larger counter-choir that not only doesn't hear you but aggressively covers its ears when you speak.
2. Media Bias
The fact is that while there has never been a pure news delivery system, it was much, much cleaner 60 years ago. One could have argued the case several decades ago that there was such an entity as "news", but it makes no sense to call these groups "news" organizations anymore. A more sensible approach would be to say that there's hot, warm, cool and cold information, and that the mainstream press and the left are the arbiters of what will be hot, cold, etc. If the press decides that a particular story does not fit their world-view or plan, the story becomes "cold", is ignored and, to the acolytes, doesn't exist. Examples would be The New York Times ignoring the Benghazi story or "Fast and Furious" for extended periods; when they finally reported on these, they had lots of ways, as always, to effect their spin: story placement and flow, leaving out facts that might be inconsistent with their world-view, interviewing those with known sympathy to their stance and then editing the interviews for greatest New-York-Times-style impact. Since so many news organizations and acolytes look to the Times to define worthy/unworthy stories, advance the "proper" spin, etc., much of the country, including many Republicans, believe that they've heard the full story after having read The Times (and The Washington Post). I've been told several times - although it always amazes me - that a particular event "never happened"...with the explanation that "The Times didn't mention it...." Because this situation has been in place without effective challenge for so long, it's second-nature to the (so-called) reporters involved in creating and perpetuating it: to most of them, the idea that they have a political slant that finds expression in their news stories would be obviously bogus...not worth wasting a moment pondering.
"What?? Are you claiming that there's a conspiracy among these journalists???" No: it's group-think! Imagine the Jewish fellow noted above speaking to a Nazi Youth club and later finding that essentially all of them had a negative reaction to his presentation. Would that be a conspiracy? Or how about someone identified as a "Petit Bourgeois" delivering a roundly rejected lecture on the benefits of capitalism to a group of Bolsheviks: although they all found his ideas wrong-headed, would their rejection reflect a conspiracy? I don't think so.
Republicans and conservatives: you are playthings of the mainstream media and they can totally have their way with you, no matter your observations or objections. And the most interesting part of living in such a one-sided media environment for so long is that the vast majority of Republicans (and many conservatives) will, like obedient puppies, follow the media lead. The bottom line: you Republicans and conservatives are powerless in defining or moving the debate: the mainstream media along with the liberals and Democrats essentially totally define the issues, the responses to the issues, which events to focus on or ignore, etc. And their chosen topics and slants can be very bizarre indeed. But you have nothing to do with it! You're powerless! Impotent! The sooner you face this fact, the sooner you might find a productive path ahead.
And one other note about the mainstream media: because you Republicans and conservatives are so impotent and because they identify, define and massage (or ignore) the stories consistent with their world view, it stands to reason that anyone can be tarnished and destroyed by them. Anyone!: Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, a reincarnated Jesus Christ, and you and any of your colleagues: it's simply a matter of who is picked out and how thoroughly he or she needs to be destroyed. If the target will cooperate and absent himself or herself, it's often unnecessary - a waste of time and resources - to continue the assault.
Likewise, if the mainstream media and the left decide to ignore a scandal or other situation, for a large percentage of the population - including many who are otherwise well informed and high-functioning - it won't exist: there's essentially nothing that you conservatives and Republicans can do about it. In related fashion, if the left and mainstream media decide to re-route information or assign blame idiosyncratically, their version will quickly become the accepted explanation for a large percentage of the populace. It's why George W. Bush is largely to blame for the mortgage crisis, (supposed) global warming, increased violent crime, persistent racism and all manner of other difficulties. Scapegoats are a beautiful thing for people who don't want to face themselves or grow up and, in a lopsided information system like ours, there is neither a shortage of scapegoats nor a practical limit to the extent of blame that one scapegoat can absorb. If you think that this plum George Bush-Sarah Palin-scapegoat-era is over, think again. And, more to the point, you Republicans and conservatives have nothing whatever to say about it.
So stop with the, "If we'd only nominated" somebody, he or she would be "so much less vulnerable" to attacks than the person we nominated; and stop the, "It's such a shame that he keeps opening his mouth and sticking his foot in it...." If some other person had been nominated, he or she would have been destroyed if he didn't fit the media paradigm: and then you'd be complaining that yet another candidate should have been nominated. Face it, Republicans and conservatives: you have nothing to say about who gets pilloried in the press and who doesn't, or what the issues will be, and there's essentially nothing you can do to change it: all of that is decided by people who disagree with and often despise you. So you may as well stop your automatic genuflections to the liberals/Democrats by beating each other up. (From a distance, though, you have to admit that it must be a gas to be able to call the shots for your opponents...to get them to hop and dance on cue, to self-flagellate, to start fighting with each other or join in the carnage.)
3. Techniques
A third element that makes the position of Republicans and conservatives almost untenable is the range of techniques for destroying them that are accepted by many Americans and the mainstream press. The most effective and destructive technique is so-called "political correctness", a method of silencing those who disagree with a group or party controlling the political agenda: it's a technique that depends on a constant reinforcing dialogue between the media and compliant citizens. Political correctness is a capital political concept because: the participants silently acquiesce to its dictates; it's a self-modulating system where groups of people self-monitor and groom each other into conformity; through unspoken or overt threats of censure, it propagates itself; and, among the willing, it inevitably leads to the control of thought. If we freely restrict our speech to only "allowed" topics, in short order we restrict our thinking as well. In the end there is no more powerful political tool than thought control, which is why mastery and management of information is a central issue in all totalitarian regimes. What has required the overt elimination or forced domination of media outlets in most autocratic regimes has been yielded up easily by our group-think media, who now march along in near lockstep while trumpeting their independence. Political correctness must be a beautiful thing to behold if you're a politician inclined toward domination.
Another technique is the investigation and censure of politicians and groups who don't fit the media or left wing paradigm, while ignoring or manipulating scandalous information on political allies. When potentially damaging information about left wing allies is ignored by the mainstream media, it simply "doesn't exist" to growing numbers of otherwise well-informed acolytes. This is why Sarah Palin is regarded as perhaps the most heinous and hated American politician today to a large portion of the population, while Bill Clinton is lionized and his wife may be the brightest woman in the western world. With enough investigation and diligence, anyone can be destroyed and almost anyone can be elevated. Again, who is destroyed and who idealized is totally within the control of the mainstream media and the left wing: conservatives and Republicans cannot substantially affect these processes because of the nullification of their brand advanced through the press, the entertainment media and educational institutions.
Two elements exacerbate this technique for conservatives and Republicans: the fact that the left wing, because it views itself as having an essential and morally-superior "mission", excuses its unscrupulous destructive strategies (like, for example, essentially inventing and repeating false stories until they become part of the political landscape [such as bogus Tea-Party threats toward Congressmen]; attacking family members of antagonists; somehow "discovering" legitimately sealed information and dropping it over the transoms of friendly media; etc.); and the fact that Republicans and conservatives, so inured to being cogs in the left-wing-driven information system, leap in to play their roles of unwitting enablers in the destruction of their own.
A third technique - another favorite of despotic regimes like the Soviets in Eastern Europe - is "selective violence": physically harmful acts meant to both stop a political opponent and send a message to like-minded potential opponents. This category includes such things as union attacks on Tea Party demonstrations; the arrest, prosecution and imprisonment of the "Coptic Christian" on charges "unrelated" to his film; covert threats toward Chief Justice Roberts by national politicians on the eve of the health care decision; the use of government powers, like repeated, intensive tax audits against political enemies; etc. It must be a comforting and, unfortunately for the body politic, "liberating" position for politicians and left-wing groups to know that no matter how many or how severe their physical or administrative attacks, these will be ignored by the mainstream press and consequently "not exist" for much of the population.
In a word, we are observing the regression of a culture...one that is moving away from sophistication and proudly stepping backward from civilizing attempts. We have seen primitive behavior in our own culture and others: when people look to a label or a skin color as all that need be said about a person; when information from trusted sources of information are grossly biased so only one side is heard or even "exists"; and when physical or administrative violence against people is belittled, laughed at or ignored. It's a cultural regression and, as the unifying, reassuring legal structures and precepts wither, as information sources become untrustworthy, and as physical and administrative violence worsens, it becomes increasingly difficult to reverse.
Also Reads:
Claim: Obama hid 'gay life' to become president
"A prominent member of Chicago’s homosexual community claims Barack Obama’s participation in the “gay” bar and bathhouse scene was so well known that many who were aware of his lifestyle were shocked when he ran for president and finally won the White House."
"How to understand such blindness, such moral lunacy, such self-destructive fantasy? The heart of United in Hate
is its analysis of the psychological mechanisms that drive the left's
embrace of terror and repression. This is the most fascinating aspect of
the book, balancing its riveting survey
of progressive misalliance. Glazov argues that underlying the
progressive's disdain for his own culture and his support for its
enemies is a deep-rooted alienation from modern democratic life. Feeling
that his society has somehow betrayed him by failing to supply him with
meaning and purpose, the "believer," as Glazov aptly dubs him, turns
away from it with fury, magnifying its failings and projecting his
longing for fulfillment onto a utopian order. Because he rejects the
perilous satisfactions and anxieties of individual freedom, he "craves a
fairy-tale world where no individuality exists, and where human
estrangement is thus impossible."
With his swollen sense of grievance, the believer identifies with all others supposedly wronged by his society and imagines those who attack his country to be attacking the same injustices that anger him. But his outrage on behalf of his country's ostensible victims is really a displaced form of his own disillusionment and hunger for collective belonging. Guilt is often a powerful motivator also, for the believer is frequently a member of a privileged class and therefore feels shame "that he is not a genuine victim." By identifying with the oppressed, he feels "a sense of atonement" for his high caste. As he agonizes over those his own society has putatively harmed, he minimizes or outright denies the suffering of those who are really victimized by the regimes he adulates; their pain and deaths do not count for him, for they stand in the way of the realization of utopia. His greatest longing is to subsume his identity into the totalitarian entity, to experience power and purpose through it. This deep-seated craving explains the two most disturbing facets of the believer's behavior: his willingness to die for the cause-think of those leftists who wanted to serve as human shields for Saddam Hussein-and the fact that his greatest support for a totalitarian regime tends to occur when its (thrilling) violence is at its height."
With his swollen sense of grievance, the believer identifies with all others supposedly wronged by his society and imagines those who attack his country to be attacking the same injustices that anger him. But his outrage on behalf of his country's ostensible victims is really a displaced form of his own disillusionment and hunger for collective belonging. Guilt is often a powerful motivator also, for the believer is frequently a member of a privileged class and therefore feels shame "that he is not a genuine victim." By identifying with the oppressed, he feels "a sense of atonement" for his high caste. As he agonizes over those his own society has putatively harmed, he minimizes or outright denies the suffering of those who are really victimized by the regimes he adulates; their pain and deaths do not count for him, for they stand in the way of the realization of utopia. His greatest longing is to subsume his identity into the totalitarian entity, to experience power and purpose through it. This deep-seated craving explains the two most disturbing facets of the believer's behavior: his willingness to die for the cause-think of those leftists who wanted to serve as human shields for Saddam Hussein-and the fact that his greatest support for a totalitarian regime tends to occur when its (thrilling) violence is at its height."
No comments:
Post a Comment