Up with Chris Hayes 4/7/2012-- But racism on the Right is far worse

I disagree, of course, but, according to Hayes, I disagree because I can't see outside my ideological box. By some feat of magical insight on the Left, they can see the racism on the Right that's not nearly as bad on the Left, and what little racism there is on the Left is condemned by people like Hayes, while racism on the Right is ignored by those with influence on the Right. Got it?

Van Jones was on, and he recently said that libertarians are racists because they support economic freedom, and, somehow, they are also homophobic and bigoted toward immigrants. Hayes didn't bring up Jone's recent racist and unfounded accusations against libertarians because Jones can't be a racist since he's black and fights against racism. Got it?

Hayes and the Leftists he runs through his program are attempting to frame the Right according to their world view and they are setting the rules. Don't bother refuting any of this because that's what racists do, and it will only make you look more like a racist. Got it?

John Derbyshire, whom I had never read before the last few days, wrote a racist piece to his kids about how to avoid groups of blacks in social settings because it's dangerous. This has to be one of the stupidest things I've seen written in a long time, and, I have no idea why National Review allows him to write for their publication. National Review has never been a publication I respected ideologically, but I thought they at least had integrity and enough good sense and moral clarity to not give a stage to racists.

When liberals sneer

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/05/greece-to-germany-only-nazis-would-give-us-billions-with-strings-attached/

Liberals usually sneer when they have no answers for their illogical thinking about economics or failing welfare statism. When comparisons are made between the US and Greece, liberals sneer for sure as they say we are a great economic power who could never reach the financial bottom that Greece has reached. Liberals in Greece are sneering at the Germans and associating them with their nazi past -- now, that justifies a sneer.

It's already started in the US -- OWS protests against "austerity" -- Van Jones calling those who support economic freedom and financial responsibility racists and homophobes and such. It seems like honest liberals would sneer at OWS and Van Jones. Regardless of the good will one can muster to assume that many in OWS are young and sincerely worried about cronyism, in order for their concerns to be addressed properly there must be limits placed on government power, but every protester I hear proposes, in one way or another, more interventionist government. You can write this off as innocent ignorance, and generously say they mean well, but ideas have power, and these statist ideas must be squashed if we want systemic changes. There's much to sneer at, but let's not sneer at real solutions.

Why are they called liberals?

 A serious question, and one I will address on this blog for the next couple of weeks. Recently Van Jones said this about libertarians, what he called "so-called" libertarians, at an OWS rally:

“They’ve taken their despicable ideology and used it a wrecking ball, that they have painted red, white and blue, to smash down every good thing in America.”

“They say they’re Patriots but they hate everybody in America who looks like us. They say they love America but they hate the people, the brown folk, the gays, the lesbians, the people with piercings, ya know ya’ll.”

”They love going to New York City! [sarcastically] I just had to take my child to see America’s beauty.”

”You can’t be an anti-immigrant bigot and a Patriot at the same time.”

I don't know if Van Jones considers himself a liberal, a progressive, a communist, or what, but I do know that many people who call themselves liberals are saying basically the same thing about "so-called" libertarians. Liberals defend this guy, and they defend OWS. I don't know if liberals consider themselves progressives, but they support progressivism, or, at least, they don't oppose progressivism or hate-mongers like Jones. I haven't heard the opposition, anyway.

I've witnessed this liberal disparagement of libertarianism quite often lately, even from some who consider themselves libertarians of a sort. The smear campaign goes like this -- some Tea Party-types call themselves libertarians, but they are actually racists and homophobes. Liberals/progressives are framing those who support economic liberty, a free market, as bigots. So what brand of libertarian views the other brand of libertarian as racist and homophobic? If what separates the two types of libertarians is economic liberty, then what does this mean, and how else are libertarians distinguished from ordinary modern liberals who are concered about civil liberties if not for their advocacy of Austrian economics in a free market environment? A libertarian who supports social, interventionist economics is a walking contradiction. What exactly makes the person a libertarian, and why are liberals considered liberal if they believe, for the most part, that economic liberty is somehow racist and detrimental to poor people? I won't even ask how economic liberty relates to homosexuality?

So, we have progressives like Van Jones, and modern liberals who apparently support progressivism, saying that the type of libertarianism that supports economic liberty is racist, callous to the plight of those in poverty, bigoted toward immigrants and homophobic. What other kind of libertarians are there but those who believe in individual rights and economic liberty, and liberty in general, and what about support for free markets makes one a racist, cold-hearted money grbber and homophobe?

More later.

OWS -- True colors

I knew it wouldn't be long before the main driving force behind OWS would show its true colors. I can't  now give the protesters the benefit of the doubt by saying I agree with some of their concerns, because their concerns can't be considered outside the context of the anti-capitalist, liberty-destroying movement which they represent. Over a third are now agreeing violence is valid, and it won't be long before violence occurs in such a way we'll all regret not condemning this movement from the start. It goes without saying that America is a free country and people have a right to voice their dissent, but this cuts both ways -- I'm exercising my right to condemn the protesters and that for which they stand.

This is an ignorant movement, and by that I mean the great majority don't understand the issues, history, economics or free market principles. I've listened to enough interviews and I've seen enough polls to know that this movement is rooted in ignorance, and it's being pushed by those who should know better -- intellectuals who intend to destroy any remnants of a free market and block all efforts to limit government power. The Van Jones, Steven Lerners and Cornell Wests of the movement know the issues, but they want some form of Marxism/socialism to replace free enterprise, and they want a powerful State which is not blocked by representatives in congress or a court system dedicated to defending the Constitution. I won't join those who pretend that something good can come just from shaking up the system -- shaking up the system is no good if you want to replace the system with something far worse than what we have.

Up with Chris Hayes 10/8/2011 -- Vacating the Free Market

I have to hand it to Chris Hayes, he's going ballistically Left as he started his program this morning with Naomi Klein and Van Jones, and while Jones is still spinning for his old boss, Klein was straightforward regarding her progressive ideology, and she slammed Obama for not going to the mat for the cause, although I don't know what more she thinks Obama could have done without the power of dictator -- I feel as if he's tried as hard as he can to implement the progressive agenda, and now he has to get reelected to finish the job. Even though I disgree with just about everything coming from Klein's brain, I respect her courage.

 I actually agree with Jones, Klein, and all the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protesters who protest government/corporate enmeshment -- however, I don't agree with their ironic call for more government intervention. I suppose what Klein, Jones and others are saying is they want a State that really, really places controls on corporations and manages the economy, though not for the benefit of favorite corporations but, rather, for the middle class and the poor. If they could be clearer about this point and how that can be accomplished, I'd have more respect.

Later on the show, PBS's Maria Hinojosa and The Washington Examiner's Tim Carney, the token Center-Right guest, also joined the conversation which during the first hour centered on OWS. Carney missed several opportunities to carry the free market ball further, but he was either drowned out by snark or he just doesn't believe in radical changes that would make a free market possible.

OWS was presented as a more advanced version of the Tea Party, a democratic effort to empower the people. I see an effort here to co-opt the TP movement, then change the direction leftward. The conversation moved to the problem of student loan debt. The question was why were banks bailed out, yet no government action has been taken to bail out students drowning in debt. The panel agreed that government has been complicit, along with society, in pushing kids to get college degrees, and now that they have degrees, they're drowning in debt and can't find jobs. Chris and the gang were careful not to present solutions, as have the OWS protesters been reluctant to show their hands when it comes to what they want government to do. The implication are pretty clear, though.

There were allusions to more control over banks, but what these controls entail is not clear. The implication regarding student debt is that students need a bailout, and they need jobs. I don't know what type of degrees these students have who can't find jobs, and many on the Right have suggested that the degrees are not in engineering and science, but rather mostly useless degrees in art, philosophy or social  work, or something less marketable in the global economy.

A problem with Haye's show is that he and his guests bring up problem after problem, but very few of the problems are given much honest scrutiny unless it's a slamdunk case against the Right -- effects aren't traced backwards to causes -- so the moral rhetoric is specious, The problems as presented by Chris and his guests appear to be morally reprehensible, but when you think for a moment and consider the nuances, many of the problems can be traced back to government intervention, unintended consequences, then more government intervention to deal with the consequences, then more unintended consequences, on and on.

A recurring tactic used by the Leftists on Haye's show is to divert criticism against the Left by saying the Right does it too. When Solydra was brought up, the defense was that Southern Company has also received subsidies, but since Southern Company is supported by rightwing, southern politicians, the Right doesn't see this as a problem. They showed a clip of a representative from the South, Gingrey, claiming that Southern Company is an established company that became successful on its own, and that Solyndra is a rsiky company that requires subsidies to exist. This is where Carney had a chance to end this specious argument -- end all subsidies to all private companies and allow the free market to work.

It's impossible to address all the issues brought up on Haye's show, and this appears to be a tactic on the Left -- bombard opponents with issue after issue, making moral claims, and when one claim is attacked for lack of clarity, add ten more moral claims. The left is attempting to overload the system so that a general zeitgeist is formed which makes a general statement that capitalism has oppressed the middle class and the poor and while government has been complicit, now mobilization of the people should demand the creation of the government and system necessary to achieve social justice. Within this general statement are a thousand unexamined issues and false assumptions. Emotion and politically correct morality are overwhelming reason and the slow process of intellectual explication. Haye's show follows his rapid fire style through the use of uzi-issues fired non-stop. Reason and comprehensive intellectual investigation of unsubstantiated claims are the victims. The OWS protesters are using the same tactic -- thousands of complaints but very little reasonable study of cause and effect. Except, as I said, when the situation is a slam-dunk case against Republican hypocrisy, then the time is taken to study cause and effect so that it's clear Republicans are in the wrong.

A much better approach, and one Carney attempted to implement at times, is to move past Right and Left and trace the effect of government/corporate enmeshment back to original causes, and realise that in doing so both Democrats and Republicans will be found guilty. Hayes said the OWS movement is claiming to rise above Left and Right, and I sincerely hope this is true, but the real question is whether they will rise above statism and begin searching for private solutions. In order to achieve real empowerment of the people, dependence on the State has to be broken, but so far all indications point toward more statism not less. I get the impression that the Left wants the State to regulate  corporations disliked by Left, but still support and subsidize correct business interests, like businesses in the green energy industry. If the OWS is about creating a State preferred by the Left, while violating the rights of everyone not on board with the progressive agenda, then it's just a form of direct democracy which will destroy America. If the OWS movement really wants to empower of the private sector, then I'm all for it.