The Left has gone too far

Between Occupy Wallstreet antics, the constant attacks on the Tea Party, media bias, Obama's constant campaign of snark and ridicule, Obama and Warren's you didn't build that campaign, PPACA, all the many regulations flowing from EPA and Dodd-Frank, Solyndra, Fast and Furious, White House leaks regarding national security issues, it's just become too much. The Left has misjudged the size of the opposition force. Most on the Left actually believe that anyone who doesn't accept the principles of social democracy in 2012 is out of touch, irrelevant and a member of a shrinking faction of ignorant racists or rich bastards trying to control the nation through the market.

Now that Rahm Emanuel and several others in government have poked the hornet nest one more time by calling out the Chick fil A owner for stating he supports same sex marriage, just as Obama has stated in the past, the Left has gone way too far. I've written for a while now I think there are many Americans who've been quiet who will now stand up and fight back. The Left has tried its best to establish a powerful State that enforces their values on the rest of the nation. Some of these values are fine in and of themselves, but acceptance of values must be voluntary. As long as an individual is not violating the rights of another, then we still value free speech. We don't all have to believe the same things. And anyone who promotes same sex marriage is not a bigot or homophobe. As I said, just a few months back, Obama stated he supports same sex marriage as the definition of marriage. The Left has gone too far in its attacks on the Right, making universal claims that just aren't true of most on the Right.

A large part of American society is not political so they don't really think of themselves as on the Right, but many of them are sceptical about government, although they have no problems with government providing roads and bridges and such. Most of these people haven't thought deeply about government interventions, but they are learning every day as they begin to investigate what others are discussing. The Information Age has changed the game.

If the Left is not careful, their 20% will be overwhelmed by Americans tired of being smeared and talked down to on a daily basis.

The Desperate Left

It's not that the Right doesn't have a lot to fix. The political involvement of the Religious Right back in the 70s, and the militaristic rise of neo-cons in the 80s and 90s, really hurt the Rightwing in the eyes of ordinary, non-political Americans who couldn't understand the need to politicize social issues, and they certainly grew tired of the war-mongering, World Policing, and empty moralizing.

Although ordinary, non-political Americans aren't libertarians (many aren't sure what the label means)they have a libertarian streak that's characteristic of most Americans. So, although the Right still has its problems, the Left is a frigging hot mess, and ordinary, nonpolitical Americans are looking at Obama and the Democratic Party, the Left's support of Occupiers, and the Left's support of the Arab Spring which many predicted would fall to radical Islamists, and Americans are asking just what the hell is going on. They don't like Obamacare, and they are stunned at the amount of debt amassed over the last 4 years. I'm not talking about Tea Partiers reacting to the Left, but American citizens in general.

What's really getting to these Americans is high unemployment with no relief in sight -- they watch Obama do things like block the Keystone pipeline and help block Boeing's expansion in South Carolina. Americans are asking what the hell is going on in DC? George Bush blew it, and now Obama's doubling down, but he's blaming Bush. What the hell is going on in DC?

The Left doesn't know how to fix this reaction against the Democratic Party. Obama's pandering to every special interest group possible, but his election situation is awful at this stage -- tied with Romney? Plus, there's Fast and Furious, the kill list, the charges of giving away vital foreign policy secrets to make Obama look good. It hasn't been good for Obama and the Democrats.

The Left is blaming Obama for not going big, for not giving the finger to the Right and charging forward with a social democracy agenda beyond Obamacare and Dodd-Frank -- they want real socialist change, but Obama is playing the pragmatist, telling the Left to hold on until after the elections. Obama is losing some on the Left and many in the middle. The Left is in disarray, when only 3 and half years ago they were on top of the world. The problem is that the Left has used political means over economic means for decades now, and it's failing miserably. The 21st century is screaming for liberty, private sector empowerment, especially economic liberty, although liberty can't be sectioned off without killing liberty, per se -- but the Left is entrenched in the political realm hoping to use democracy and majority rule to dominate America. Americans aren't having this -- they are rebelling. That's a good thing. Wake up liberals, don't follow the progressives over the political cliff.

Left divided

Talk in the media about divisions on the Right is common, but the growing division on the Left is hardly discussed. There have been a few stories regarding dissatisfaction on the Left with Obama's presidency, but the reasons for the dissatisfaction are unclear -- mostly, though, it's said he hasn't fought hard enough for the progressive agenda. However, the divide is not really about President Obama.

Watching the Sunday news shows this weekend a few issues emerged in stark contrast. One subtle but noticable contrast was the panel discussion on Meet the Press. Tom Friedman and Tom Brokaw represented the Traditional Left and Marc Morial represented the anti-Traditional Left, for lack of a better term. I'll call it the New Left, but I want to avoid any misunderstanding regarding how the New Left was defined in the 20th century.

The Friedman/Brokaw Left calls for an establishment-Left understanding of blue collar worker bee production in relation to Big Government/Private partnership schemes elevating America's role in the world as the mecca of equality and fairness. Friedman-type Leftists call for a cutting edge statist movement in the 21st century that embraces technology while simultaneously embracing the environmental concerns and high-horse of compassion which the Left has owned for decades. While the New Left is also concerned about jobs and social issues, it's a much different concern.

Just as the Infomation Age and New Media have uncovered different strains on the Right, from libertarian to yahoo war-mongers and social puritans, different strains on the Left are also revealed. The major movement on the Left was uncovered in the OWS movement, and although it's not necessarily new, it's overt claims which were once hidden in obscurantism are in the open. This part of the Left is not necessarily interested in blue collar jobs and grand work projects guided by government. The New Left believes the establishment Left is too cloesly aligned with the establishment Right and that both have colluded to rig the game. This New Left fears Obama has been captured or cowered by the establishment. This New Left wants action now to defeat and dismantle the capitalist inner sanctum and to enjoy the spoils of victory. Brokaw and Friedman are a part of the 1%.

This New Left is not interested in being the worker bees for the establishment Left, patted on the head for being loyal -- they want a New Social Contract. The New Left wants guarantees that the Masters who've stolen the wealth will be brought low and that their wealth will be redistributed. They want obstacles removed so that their version of pursuit of happiness is implemented. They don't want any job -- they want the type of jobs or pursuits which are meaningful to them, even if the pursuit is not in the workforce. This New Left believes there's enough wealth to ensure a basic living for everyone -- they value leisure and community building and spiritual quests more than a lousy dead-end job that benefits the Fat Cats more than the worker bee. The ones on the New Left who do want to work and to contribute want their pursuits valued as much as products being built -- they want to contribute in the ways they think are important -- isn't it more important to express a higher purpose than to labor just to pay bills or to win some rat race to wealth?

The New Left realizes there are many people who like the rat race and wealth creation, but not everyone is cut out for those pursuits, and some groups of Americans don't have a fair chance in that rat race even if they want to join, so, different arrangements must be made to ensure those who can't create wealth in the rat race or who will never be happy in worker bee jobs can still live a comfortable life and contribute their unique offerings to community and society. They want a New Bill of Rights.

While the Traditional Left has played with the idea of New Rights, and have even made progress implementing New Rights, the New Left wants to go all the way and transform the entire system built on out-dated capitalist ideas. They thought Obama was the One, but they've become disillusioned that Hope and Change has been thwarted by the Right, and that Obama has allowed the Right to block the transformation. The New Left is going directly to the system in order to bring it down.

The Traditional Left shows concern, while at the same time giving support to the New Left. The Traditional Left attempts to explain the New Left in terms acceptable by the public -- we do need fairness and equality -- the Fat Cats have gobbled up the wealth and should pay their fair share -- etc, etc. But, the Traditional Left of the Friedmans and Brokaws don't want to tear down the system -- they want to continue their idea of the process of reform. There's a wide divide between reform and revolution, and the Left will find that 2012 presents a challenge to bring the two sides together. The New Left is in no mood to capitulate, though, so there will be fireworks, and the Traditional Left has some big decisions to make -- where do they stand between free market principles and a new democratic/socialist order? Where do the Friedmans and Brokaws stand between limited government and statism on steroids? Where do they stand between productive work/wealth creation and guaranteed, State sponsored happiness/income/living?

Statist delusion

The frustration among statists is palpable. The deal was sealed in 2008, so, when Hope and Change unravelled, a deep urge for raw power surfaced, and now the Left and Radical Center rely on intellectual games to justify taking through coercion what they believe they rightly deserve. The Plan didn't work -- the idea of a smart, progressive and cosmopolitan president with public support was a dream come true, especially after 8 years of Bush, but the image vanished and behind it was nothing, not to mention the maddening advent of the Tea Party and the loss of independents. The possibility of statist transformation was in hand, and now it appears stalled.

National healthcare was only the beginning -- there was also the comforting realization that redistribution could strengthen an insufficient welfare state so that basic needs are finally rights. Entitlement to basic needs has become something the Left expects government to enforce, but, that dream is vanishing because of the global financial crisis. The State is about power, but neither Right nor Left idealists ever catch on. As Albert Jay Nock told us decades ago, the State is anti-social.

In Europe, now that Germany has drained all the short-term benefit possible from the EU, she faces the awful reality of statist decline, weighed down by dependents such as Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal, yet, statists in America insist we follow the European lead. This dream of benevolent State control to eliminate insecurity and ensure a minumum living standard whether we work or not, and regardless of whether new wealth is created, is just that -- a dream. In reality, we have to produce to grow and prosper. But the worst aspect of the statist dream is that if it came true, it would turn into a nightmare.

As Elizabeth Warren and other Leftists play intellectual games of social justice, the underlying reality of State power eludes them. Promises of stability and security based on a powerful State which will redistribute wealth and centrally control the direction of the economy are bogus, because stability and security are illusions. There is only action and change, and we can deal with change creatively in a free market with a limited government which prevents coercion, or we can allow the State to control our lives as it intervenes blindly to deal with changes it never understands. We've reached a point in the global market where changes are rapid, requiring rapid, flexible, localized responses to global activity. As the State attempts to control the direction of the market, it's necessary for the State to implement more and more regulations to shape the desired outcomes. Then in the middle of the central planning there are political/business interests competing to gain power over the system. Only elite, connected players can win in such a system, while their interventions and crony-manipulations create uncertainty among the politically dis-connected. Solyndra becomes the model for the State-directed economy, while small and medium size businesses are burdened with paying for the Game.

Some on the Left are waking up to government/corporate enmeshment, and they recommend more free market activity, but at the same time they still insist on a strong welfare system, and this is the quandary in which we find ourselves. I predict many people will become dissatisfied with government intervention in the economy, and sticking with pure economic issues, they will demand more economic freedom -- however, as long as the American people demand a strong welfare state, loss of economic freedom will continue. Although Mises and Hayek and Friedman and other free enterprise economists stated that as long as there's a market, state welfare will not turn a country into a socialist basket case,  none of these economists really concentrated on the long-term effects of welfare states, perhaps Friedman moreso than the other two. It's been accepted by almost everyone, except a few libertarians, that State welfare is necessary in a civilized society. Despite the Left's denigration of the Right's heartless desire to end welfare, no Republican administration has ever tried to end the welfare state, and most have worked to expand the welfare state alongside Democrats.

The most Republicans will do is give speeches about making the welfare state more efficient. The welfare state is popular with most Americans, because the ability to imagine a private alternative is practically absent. The welfare state relieves people of having to consider issues of poverty and the plight of the truly needy, the unfortunate who got a bad break in life. As long as there's a welfare state, whenever the ugliness of society's most unfortunate makes its way into the public's consciousness, the reality of the situation is pushed aside with the knowledge that some government social worker is handling the case.

There's no natural duty for anyone to care for the needy, but most people are touched when they see someone suffering -- it's a part of being human, and anyone who's indifferent to suffering is not fully human. As long as Americans maintain the idea that suffering and need are dealt with by government programs, we'll use this to justify a strong welfare state, and this is how the State fights off all threats to limit government power. Every time there's a movement to limit government, the first response from the political class is to warn the public that Medicare, SS, unemployment, school lunches, healthcare for the poor, veteran benfits, foodstamps, etc, will be eliminated. When this hyperbolic reaction to limits on government power scares enough people or makes them feel guilty, the State is once again safe from those who wish to limit its power. The Security Game is played over and over as the State expands control.

Until the puiblic realizes that the private sector can deal with problems associated with poverty and misfortune, we'll remain tied to State power, and our interventionist government which makes State power possible will find reasons to intervene economically in the name of the safety net, social justice, environmental concerns, terrorist threats, and so on. The belief that a nation can maintain a powerful welfare state and a free market economy has more to do with faith and wishful thinking than with political and economic reality.

Paternalistic revolution

When we think of revolutions, paternalistic is not an inspiring adjective -- the paternalism of the USSR turned off many 20th century communists -- but it appears today that State paternalism is embraced by Leftist revolutionaries. Are they really revolutionaries, though, are or they State dependents sacrificing personal sovereignty and individuality for advantage, security and the illusion of equality and social justice?

The State has always needed "useful idiots", and the supply never runs low. Useful idiots is too harsh, though, and what I mean is that the State takes advantage of idealism, envy, fear and the desire for security. Eugene Robinson asked on Morning Joe today if we need a new Bretton Woods to rearrange the global economic order, and the question revealed Washington's position -- yes, he and many others do think we need a new global order, now that China and Southeast Asia are seen as major economic players. Many on the Left are working diligently for a New Order built on the vague ideas of social justice, redistibutive justice and anti-capitalism. The underlying inspiration is socialist, in that economies should be guided and controlled by States in a global union of major international players. They can guide redistribution, environmental concerns, and they can assure minimum living standards for all people across the globe, and they can empower workers, women and minorities freed from the oppression of capitalist overlords.

This New Order, though, will not likely empower anyone but the elite, many of them Multi-National Corporate chieftains, who would eventually control the New Order, and it's not likely the power elite will be represented by women, workers or poor people of color -- nor will any of the now-supportive intellectuals find representation unless they give up free-thinking. Most revolutions are ostensibly about freedom, but this revolution, as it materializes in America, at least, appears to purposefully embrace submission to State power.

The problem with centralized control which needs to coerce those resistant to control is that it winds up coercing everyone except the most malleable and submissive who just go along with whatever they're told to think, say or do. Paternalism has to keep its subjects as children or it loses control. In order to make the type of omelette revolutionaries say they desire, cracked eggs are inevitable, but who's egg? It's not always the egg of your enemy (the recalcitrant freedom-lovers and free market kooks), if centralized power finds it necessary, they crack the egss of anyone who strays from Papa's control. We've seen it all before in Russia, China, the French Revolution, Germany, North Korea, Cuba, etc. -- the power-elite is almost always male-dominated, older males, authoritarian males, and they almost always turn on early, idealistic supporters, like feminists, young firebrands with the wrong dreams and poor people of the wrong color/religion/culture/whatever who don't fully submit to the centralized Plan.

Of course, the great majority of liberals, centrists and progressives who join the Leftist parade and flirt with the revolutionary/statist spirit and denigrate anything resembling wealth, promotion of limited government or indivdiuality aren't consciously embracing a tryannical New World Order, it's just where these ideas lead when you believe Smart State Power is the purveyor of collective morality and welfare, and that economic liberty, free-thinking and free choice are no longer desirable.