The Smiley Syndrome: How the Left Distorts Reality
Talk show host Tavis... oh, wait...
Very few wrongdoers do wrong because they are determined to be villains. Rather, they either have a distorted sense of reality to begin with, or they resolutely distort reality in order to justify the satisfaction of some rage or desire. The man who beats his wife convinces himself she deserves it, the child molester talks about his “relationship” with his victim, the bigot imagines some magical superiority pulsing through his DNA. I believe they know the truth in their deeper conscience, but these sorts of rationalizations can mute that voice almost to silence.
A while back, I blogged about the fascist message of the movie V for Vendetta. I pointed out that by positing Christianity and the British Parliament as symbols of oppression, and by holding up Islam and terrorism as instruments of beauty and freedom, the film created a world that was morally opposite to our own and thus justified what, in real life, would be murder in the cause of dictatorship. Several commenters complained, in effect, that I was denying the film the right to its fictional universe; in the context of the movie, they said, blowing up Parliament was an act of liberation and not fascist in the least.
All well and good, but art does not exist outside the world we know but in relation to it. Tell a story in which Hitler is a lovable good guy and you’re either doing satire or you’re nuts. V for Vendetta — like many films, TV shows, college liberal arts courses, the network news and articles in the New York Times — is an expression of the statist left’s distorted sense of reality and an attempt to impose that distortion, and the authoritarianism it fosters, on the rest of us.
Which brings me to left wing PBS talk show host Tavis Smiley. I don’t single Smiley out because I think he’s a bad guy or a stupid guy. In fact, from a distance, he seems a decent fellow with above average intelligence. But that’s exactly why his weirdly distorted worldview strikes me as both particularly dangerous and also typical of many on the left.
Here are two examples.
My friends at the Media Research Center made a good deal of fun of this 2010 exchange between Smiley and Ayaan Hirsi Ali — and with good reason. Ali — an heroic atheist crusader against such widespread and barbaric Muslim practices as honor killing, genital mutilation and religious war — remarks that Muslim terrorists are acting on the conviction that they will be rewarded for murdering innocents in the hereafter. Smiley immediately responds: “But Christians do that [murder people] every single day. In this country…. People walk into post offices. They walk into schools. That’s what Columbine was. I mean, I could do this all day long.”
This video is posted on YouTube as “a classic TV truth moment,” in which Smiley takes down the “Muslim hater” Ali with a barrage of facts. But what facts? There are, as I write this, Muslims currently committing acts of violence in the name of their faith in every corner of the globe and against people of virtually every belief system mankind has ever devised including their own. Whether this violence is inherent to Islamic philosophy or a cancerous aberration, it is a unique phenomenon in the modern world and there is no equivalent in any other group of religious believers. Sane American Christians, conversely, do not walk into post offices or schools to kill people on a daily basis — or ever — for religious reasons. The two young murderers of Columbine were not even pretending to act on behalf of Christ but were engaged in a psychopathic folie a deux which included a fascination with Satan, whom Christians tend to regard unfavorably. Indeed, the only thing close to an act of specifically Christian violence in America — outside the realm of psychopathology — is the killing of abortion workers in putative defense of the unborn. This has happened exactly once in the last decade and eight people have been killed overall since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in 1973. The murders were, of course, condemned almost universally by American Christian groups — which is as opposed to Muslim violence which has a disturbingly broad base of Islamic support.
Yep, I’m gonna recommend this on Facebook as well. But at least nowadays I’m not getting challenged on them anymore…
Wait, I spoke too soon.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali should have called Smiley’s bluff- “I’ve got all day, go ahead…”, and watched as Smiley began to talk veeerrrryyy ssslllooowwwlllyyy.
except that Ayaan has a busy schedule doing actual work and doesn’t have all day to listen to a fool
I seem to recall reading that the Columbine killers ridiculed one of their classmates for her Christian faith seconds before they murdered her.
Correct. Her name was Rachel Scott;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Scott
Far from being Christians, Harris and Klebold had previously repeatedly mocked Scott for her beliefs, as shown in their videos. Perhaps not coincidentally, she was their first victim.
Apparently, Mr. Smiley can’t even be bothered to use Wiki, let alone all the news archives he has access to at work.
cheers
eon
Cassie Bernall, “She Said Yes.”
It was credited to Cassie Bernall, but determined that she did not say anything to the shooters. The incident is now credited to Valeen Schnurr, who was lying on the library floor wounded, when asked by one of the shooters if she believed in God, she replied, “Yes I believe in God.”
Maybe. I tend to believe what has been related by eyewitnesses immediately following a tragedy, but the shooters asking this same question of more than a couple of their victims is a pretty good bet.
“The Rocky Mountain News quotes another student who was in the library during the shootings, Joshua Lapp, as saying he is still sure of his memory of the event and that Cassie WAS asked about her belief and DID respond by saying “yes” before she was shot. Editor of Misty Bernall’s book, Chris Zimmerman, states that Cassie’s mother was candid about the fact that there were differing accounts of what was said in the library; the crux of the book being the true story of a troubled American teen-ager who encountered God and experienced a dramatic change that gave her the confidence to face both her life and her death.”
A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of them is not understanding. — Isaac Newton
Excellent article. Love your blog.
There is no point in arguing with those whose “facts” are clearly different from yours. Where the Right and the Left can agree on what is factual, we can then argue over interpretation and philosophy.
This is why it is so difficult to carry on a conversation with those on the Left. They’re not even seeing the same data.
My experience on left wing blogs like Huffington Post, is that you get immediately swarmed by the mega-”likes” (who I assume act as some internal vigilante guard). Then they bombard you with “canned” talking points and accusations. As you try to deflect all the flak, you realize that the original point you made has been completely glossed over. And with HuffPo it doesn’t help that the moderators seem to randomly edit out many of your posts, putting you in an untenable position.
The speed and precision at which the Huffers descend in their attack makes me think that the big hitters tweet their comrades about a “troll” in the territory. Almost every encounter I’ve had on HuffPo ends with me giving up out of frustration. Not one time have they actually addressed my initial point. It’s an immediate descent into ad hominems, generalizations, and non sequiters. It’s the equivalent of being pelted with rotten eggs and tomatoes.
I try not to give the HuffPo my traffic, and they certainly do not deserve my comments.
Again, they’re not even recognizing the same facts, so any discussion is moot.
HuffPo kicked me off their website… wow 2 years ago… so work harder the admins will block you entirely. Leftists are SO tolerant don’t you know.
I gave up on HuffPo several months ago for the same reason. Some of their articles are good, but if you dare to post a “conservative” viewpoint, you’re attacked unmercifully. I did have several followers, but it wasn’t worth the effort.
Smiley: “You going to believe me, or your lyin’ eyes?”
Smiley may not be truly evil but he’s not worthy of breathing the same air as Ms. Ali.
Andrew, Great column as always.
The Hirsi Ali clip deserves a wide audience and your point is well made here.
However regarding your assertion that blacks advanced more under Reagan than LBJ, do you or any readers have a link or two supporting it? Its all well and good to make the claim and state it as fact but without some documentation its no different than what Tavis is doing. Also, I was unaware this was actually the case and would like to learn more about it. To me, links are one of the amazing things about internet articles. The evidence can be immediately viewed.
Thanks
Walt
well no links yet.
i strayed over here from some link and am amazed.
almost 40 different takes on just how terrible the “they” are.
It is truly amazing how people fall into the same traps they want to expose.
And another thing, Andrew. Even if Tavis was right, that we have religious nuts in the US killing innocent people, usually with no organizational structure behind them to provide ideological support, incitement and finance, my response would be: “So What? That’s a ten year old’s immature argument from comparative example.” Is the point it can’t be so bad because other people on our side do it? Johnny says: Well it’s OK to smoke because Petey does it. Yeah, the parent says, if Petey jumped off a bridge would you do it? [Or walked into a post office and shot people would that make it OK.
The response is if Hitler throws Jews in ovens it is wrong. If Americans practice Anti-Semitism and kill people of the Jewish faith also (or even Native Americans doing nothing to them) it is wrong as well. What is the point of saying other people are just as guilty. I don’t get it. It is not even an argument. Tavis would have to explain to me what his point was, even if was true, because as an adult I just don’t see the logic. Your claim, Andrew, that Tavis is above average in intelligence is just not born out by the facts.
Edmund,
I believe what you are articulating is the “tu quoque” fallacy. Its seen quite often these days. Particularly by those attempting to rebut the likes of Hirsi Ali, Nonie Darwish etc.
“But if they are really people of good will…” — those of the progressive, stealth socialist Left seem to be condescending know-it-alls hell-bent on protecting all of us regular dullards from our own intellectual inferiority.
That”s some backhanded good will, I guess…
“I don’t single Smiley out because I think he’s a bad guy or a stupid guy.”
A man who claims to unintentionally do evil is inherently more evil than a man who intentionally does evil. The “unintentional” evil-doer expects one outcome but gets another. He promised good, the results were bad, and if he doesn’t immediately repudiate his actions then he double-downed on the bad. His first act was possibly in error, the second act promoted the bad while encapsulating it in a lie. The intentional evil-doer merely got the desired results of his scheme.
When you look at Tavis Smiley you’re looking at the face of evil. Don’t kid yourself into thinking “they know not what they do”. They know full well the misery and despair their actions will cause and they revel in it because that misery and despair increases their power. And with that increased power they can create more misery and despair to further increase their power. Why do you think most journalists are Democrats? Does the phrase “if it bleeds it leads” mean anything? Disasters sell newspapers and increase tune-in so it shouldn’t shock anyone that journalists would strive to increase the vitality of their livelihoods. We’re at least a century past the point where the consequences were unintended.
Remember Haiti, everyone? Haiti? No? Gee, wonder what happened to them? Oh well, on to the next crisis/disaster/problem we can fix with our feel-good ideas solely designed to reinforce the perceived notion that we’re good people and better than conservatives. “We are the world, we are the children . . .”
It’s always important to recognize that Mr. Smiley is an important employee within America’s “Race Induustry.” It is one of America’s few going business concerns. How can it be otherwise? When all you need to produce is an unending sense of grievance, slander of your opponents and “holier-than-thou” public posturing there is no limit to what you can produce. If Tavis Smiley ever wonders whey race relations stink then all he needs do is look in the mirror.
I graduated in ’86 with a BA in journalism and broadcasting. I worked in that for a little while. I quickly realized that the media, at least in NY, where I live, was dominated, DOMINATED, by a certain type. They’re leftists, but it’s not just that simple. They love violence, but only in movies. They love sports, and they believe that being a jock somehow makes you like every other guy in America. As in, we talk about the “game last night” or who won some fight, and boom, we’re the same.
Well, I’m not a jock and let me say that any attempt to discuss anything ranging from the Constitution to doing their own research on current events was met with laughter and derision. And most of these leftist pro abortion, anti-gun liberals loved Reagan. Why? Because like the jocks they are, they saw the USSR as another team that had to be beaten.
These people, urban, fast paced, insulated from the rest of the country have also had it with Obama, FYI. They may hate “Republicans” but they like winning. And they know that Romney will help the economy win. Mark my words.
Nothing is clear cut, black and white. Smiley is where he is because he toes the line and goes to the parties in doorman buildings where the white elite shake and bake their current iteration of the status quo. These folks love divorce, gayness and they’re done such a bad job raising their kids through all of that that their kids are a mess. To abandon their view of the world that they hold would be to admit that their whole self invented culture was a failure. But it’s not as clear as it seems, as I stated earlier, and on certain issues, their is movement, and we are winning. One of those issues is guns. Most of the urban/squatter/anarchist types that I talk to are all for the Second Amendment. Not what the NRA wants to hear. You never know where the truth will land!
But guys like Smiley are just old school pawns. It’s really quite pathetic, and I don’t think anyone actually listens to him.
Some of our Conservative/Libertarian issues will catch on. Some won’t. And that will be the new mainstream. One issue that WILL NOT catch on is the whole anti-union, free trade thing. People of course hate corruption but everyone, left and right is tired of being underpaid while everything is brought in from China. People are sick of it. Everyone likes to pay their bills. And that’s the reason there has been such a successful and concerted effort to divide the Tea Party and the Occupy movement. Yeah, the occupiers generally smell, blah, blah and the Tea Partiers are generally on Social Security or some other pension plan, SSI or whatever for their bad backs. The fact is, PJM is doing its duty by keeping the revolutionaries on the left and the right separated, just as the NY Times is.
I could go on for a week about how free trade works and explain until I pass out from lack of oxygen, but I get the same feeling as you do–there’s as many ‘buy American’ cranks on the right as anti-global-capitalists on the left. It’s a problem that the conservative movement and its allied competitors (libertarianism, religious right etc) have to face. Not that free trade won’t fix the problem, but it’s never been free. It has to be reciprocated. I think we should just get rid of all trade agreements and create a mirrored tariff system. That way any other country that lowered trade barriers would be instantly rewarded by exactly the same lowering on our side. Then we might actually get some free trade and everybody would be wealthier…
…but I digress. The real problem is not that facts are stubborn things, but that we are endlessly barraged by facts that are really just positions. You wouldn’t think so but it’s the fault of oat bran…or eggs are good/eggs are bad/eggs are ok/eggs are a super food…or 1 in 1women are beaten by their husbands/actually 4 in 5 of those are the agressors for an average of 2 years before they are hit in return. What we’re really suffering under is a tyrrany of false expertise; our experts are charlatans or at best sophists, rather than philosophers or serious scholars, and their goal is a quick buck or they’re on a crusade against…something. Every profession is for sale; you can always get a psychiatrist to say someone is both sane and insane in any trial you like.
This is the real problem. The reason Reagan was so successful is his ability to simplify complex arguments and make them intelligible to those who don’t want to get an economics degree just to understand a chart. So long as conservatives (and libertarians, etc) continue to lecture and dazzle with facts we’ll never really break out. It’s not that people are stupid, it’s that they’re specialized. Of course they’re economically illiterate–they have their own business to tend to, and the endless barrage of contradictory facts makes it easier to just pick a team.
Wow a classical education sure would be useful…
I wonder if free trade is really all that hard to sell. Do you think isolationist liberals or buy-only-American-conservatives really wants to be the sucker that pays more for stuff than they have to (because of trade tarrifs or embargos)? How hard is it to point out that the extra costs goes to the government and/or crony capitalists? Also, trade protectionism causes most wars. You could say, “Don’t you want peace, my liberal brother?!”
Interesting
I was watching and listening, saying to myself, “But the Muslims did it in the name of their religion!” It’s shocking that Muslims will invoke Allah when they commit these sins, but the Left sees only the violence and ignores the invocation of Allah. Smiley is a moron.
Exactly.
“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly – it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over…”
Joseph Goebbels
Addendum “…..and it doesn’t matter whether the few points are based on fact or lies..” (My addition not Goebbels, but Goebbels did believe that if lies are told often enough and loud enough they will be seen as fact among much of the general population, especially the weak minded).
Progressives, Facists, Communists, Islamists, etc. mock the world with this tactic, while your average schlepp conservative talks in paragraphs, occasionally gets some facts in when he/she isn’t shut down and loses constantly.
Obama will win again with this strategy just as he did in ’08
Thanks.
“Every man has a right to his own opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts.” – Bernard Baruch (1950)
Rusty Bill – I was going to say the same thing but you beat me to the punch. Also, I though it was Pat Moynihan who said it, not Bernard Baruch (but I may be showing my ignorance here).
Larsky, do you really think Obama will win Pa, Fla, etc? He won the tobacco chewing vote only because those voters wanted to give a Black guy one shot at the office, against McCane.
Andrew, when you say “…in effect, that I was denying the film the right to its fictional universe; in the context of the movie, they said, blowing up Parliament was an act of liberation and not fascist in the least” I think you’re misstating what I — and I think other defenders of V — were saying. The government in V for Vendetta was clearly an oppressive, explicitly fascist government. The symbolism used by the government was fascist in the extreme, the nasty little man who was the leader lacked only a toothbrush mustache to be a caricature of Hitler.
Now, if you read forward to the graphic novel, you’ll find that Alan Moore thought that was what Margaret Thatcher was heading for, so he’s clearly a dope, but unless you’re willing to call the Free French and the Resistance in WW II “terrorists” and “fascists”, this notion that there was something inherently fascist about blowing up government buildings in V just won’t wash.
Why do you always have to throw out nonsense such as this? In fact, from a distance, he seems a decent fellow with above average intelligence.
Why can’t we all agree and say that Smiley is a blithering idiot who will say anything regardless of the facts?
Right on spot Mark.
The answer I suppose is that Mr. Klavan wants to preempt the barrage of claims of racism that follows any denunciation of yet another empty black suit.
Read David Horowitz’s analysis of the Left. They are at WAR with the U.S. as founded. So they use war tactics against Republicans. Subtefuge, lying, obfuscation, supression, hate, verbal assaults and attacks are all part of their methods. No tactic is too low. Its all for the cause. And they get away with these tactics because ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Time Mag., and the LA Times etal all support it.
Liberalism is more of a religion than they will admit. They hold to a certain set of beliefs, minimize facts that contradict those beliefs, and emphasize facts consistent with them. Their arguments tend to be emotional and moral, not logical and factual. They are angry and dismissive when contradicted. This is ideology, not principle.
Hey, don’t tar religion by making liberalism one!
My religion is based on truths which surpass what can just be known by reason, but we explicitly face and answer arguments that contradict those beliefs. Our arguments are moral, logical and factual.
Ideology is not the same as religion.
Even if “Christian” terrorists were walking into buildings and shooting people or dropping bombs everywhere, would they be doing it based upon the teachings of Jesus or in spite of them? Whoopi Goldberg tried the same argument when Bill O’Reilly said that muslims had killed us on 9/11. She said, “what about McVeigh” before she and the other mental midget Joy Behar walked off the stage in a huff. Of course, there was nothing in McVeigh’s statements that was even close to a Christian-based reason for his attack. But just like all libtards, who needs facts when lies will confuse people just as well.
True. McVeigh actually denounced religion, saying science was his religion. But when moral equivalence is the only card you have, you gotta play the hand.
Liberals are not interested in truth or facts. The thought process begins with a conclusion and various bits of data are found to fit. If there is no such data it is presumed to be there. It must be there because I could not possibly be wrong about the premise I began with.
For liberals there is no such thing as objective reality. The world is not something out there to be discovered. What matters is ME and what other people think of ME because that directly affects how I feel about ME.
Others have already made excellent points (Kermudjin, DavidW, spindok) so I will simply add that liberalism is based on feelings, not facts. Facts are of no use to Smiley or any other liberal and are viewed by liberals as simple obstacles to be overcome in their quest to empower themselves. Lying, fabricating, obfuscating, obstruction, ignoring, suborning, misrepresentation, and mischaracterization are all tools in the liberal toolbox. Lying is simply another day at the office for liberals.
The left are and always have been about the narrative. Whatever promotes the agenda is of and by itself a good thing. If it’s true that’s even better, but a lie that sells well is perfectly acceptable. And when you try to counter the lie with facts they fall back on ad hominem attacks on your character, anything to divert attention away from their position’s lack of truth.
Case in point: 90% of Mexican drug cartel guns come from US retail sources. Widely disseminated front page news. When the truth came out that the real number was closer to 8% or at most 18% it was buried in back pages. Not to mention ATF’s Fast and Furious effort to cook the numbers with government sanctioned straw trades.
Good point, Mr. Klavan! There is such an air of unreality about the liberal point of view. I remember thinking, naively apparently, that once Google became a universal resource, liberalism would end, because the absurd premises they based their ideas on could be instantly disproved.
In fact, it’s happened, but liberals keep thinking that way anyway. I’ll give an example: the other evening at a party, a liberal started talking about how Gingrich had served divorce papers on his wife in the hospital who was dying of cancer at the time. I pointed out that his ex-wife is still alive, and never had cancer, and it could easily be Googled. He waved his hands at me, and said, well, even so, it tells you everything you need to know about his character. I asked him, how does being lied about tell you something about his character? I would think it would tell you more about the character of the person who did the lying in the first place.
At which point his face turned red and he called me a teabagger.
As you say, it’s an alternate universe they live in, and they’re sticking to it, no matter what.
An interesting example that maybe some folks caught on O’Reilly last night. A fellow named Harpootlian, the head of the South Carolina Democratic party, tried to place the race card by saying there was something wrong with the GOP holding a debate on MLK day. O’Reilly gave him enough rope to hang himself, then pointed out that the Democrats held a debate on MLK day in 2008. Harpootlian twisted, turned, tried to modify his statement, but he was bound and determined to play the race card no matter what. Ideology trumps facts every time.
Well, leftists have migrated from moral relativism to amoral relativism.
The assault on the Bible and its adherents is no longer based upon “the Crusades” or “Southern Man bible-thumping hypocrisy”.
Today the frontal assault needs no historical “backbone” upon which to pin leftist enmity. They hate Christians and Jews merely for the adherence alone.
The subterfuge today wears a thinner, more transparent cloak. The small c communists root for the enemies of the Old and New Testamentarians….because they are offended by faith in anything but leftism.
It’s not that they necessarily wish to preach the virtues of 7th century barbarism, it’s merely that jihadists make good one night stand bedfellows in the march against “the enemy”.
Tearing down religious bonds and family bonds and cultural bonds and national pride bonds…is the raison d’etre for committed small c communists.
The cult demands absolute fealty absolutely. Planting seeds of doubt, destroying morale, destabilizing loyalty…by any means necessary…including V for Vendetta, almost all Hollywood offerings, indoctrination of students and pupils of all ages, and through the serial offenses of distortion and deceit by the propaganda machine…all serve the same function.
Weakening our resolve to stave off the revolution. Jihadists are simply a tool for their arsenal. Knowing this doesn’t make it any easier to stomach.
Dealing with traitors is a full time job in post-modern America…we simply have to acknowledge the depth of the task….and the vigilance it requires.
‘one night stand bedfellows’
And, yes, like a one night stand, they’re going to regret it.
cfbleachers comes to the nut of it in the last line: post-modernism, an essential component of modern leftism. I’ve dealt with old-fashioned doctrinaire communists, old trade-unionists who had to stop waving the hammer and sickle after Taft-Hartley, but they didn’t give up their beliefs. They’re mostly logical, practical people. They’ll lie to you, but they know they’re lying and they usually figure you know they’re lying too. In other words, they live in the same linear, Euro-centric, ordered world that we do, they just have a different value system and they do place at least some value on life. No matter how callous the Soviets could be they didn’t want to die and their declining the Queen’s Gambit of mutually assured destruction is ample proof of that.
The modern usually college educated or specifically trained leftist is another creature alltogether. He denies the existence of objective history, objective truth, objective reality, everything is perception. You and I, certainly I, can lie; I can say one thing to be true when I know that the truth is some other thing. A lefty cannot lie, for whatever comes out of his mouth at the time was true to him at that time and place; truth is what he believes it to be. History is what he perceives it to be and the reason so many of them have no interest in history or classics; to them history started with their perceiving events around them. To them the shadows on the wall of the cave are just as real, maybe more real, than the object that made the shadow or caused the shadow.
In the last decade or so of my career I dealt with a lot of the post-modernist leftists as union representatives or in the leadership cadre of unions and also not a few Democrat, and even a few Republican, politicians. They really don’t understand hypocrisy as we do; oh, they’ll accuse us of it if they can say we did one thing and said another, but it doesn’t apply to them. Whatever is right for them is right and something else might be right for them five minutes later. Likewise, whatever they believe to be true, is true, and something else might be true five minutes later.
You absolutely cannot bargain with these people and you can never trust them; this they have in common with their islamist allies. The revolution is its own morality is, I think, Mao’s line, but whether they really know Mao or not, all lefties believe that whatever advances the revolution is moral; lying, cheating, stealing, breaking promises, and, yes, killing people all are moral if they advance the revolution. This is why these people are so damnably difficult to deal with and why our Rotary Club Republican leadership are so inept in dealing with them. The McCain’s of the World still want to deal with a person who really does have an alternate perception of reality and morality as their “friend.” That perception is like becoming frieds with a T-Rex.
The only thing I ever found to work with them was fear. You had to show them that you could and would hurt them; economically, politically, socially, and, yes, physically if necessary. The best rule we ever developed in dealing with their statements and public positions was, “would you beleive this from your six year old?”
Which goes back to the same question I keep asking here: What are we going to do about the left going forward? But everyone seems to only be interesed in further dissection of the left. Noboyd is willing to assert a plan going forward with what to do about the left since it is obvious that we and they cannot co-habit the same nation.
“Noboyd is willing to assert a plan going forward with what to do about the left since it is obvious that we and they cannot co-habit the same nation.”
As a Nation, I really don’t know what we do; they firmly control about half the states and I don’t know how that changes. My state rather uniquely has had to learn to keep them somewhat in check. Alaska was so heavily Democrat that it was only admitted to the Union concurrently with then-heavily Republican Hawaii so as not to upset the balance of power in the Senate. Alaska was literally built by New Deal Era Democrats and for its first twenty-five years of Statehood was pretty much a petri dish for democratic socialism American style. And then came Prudhoe Bay and the State doubled in population and grew exponentially in wealth in a decade or so.
By the time I came to State government in ’87, the Democrats were still owned by organized labor but restrained by the fact that the State didn’t have any money to give them. The oil price crash of the mid-’80s caused us to spend lots of weeks wondering if we could pay our bills and make payroll. Consequently, even the Democrats had to deal with concessionary bargaining with the State’s unionized employees, something never really done in the US before. In the late ’80s, early ’90s we literally wrote the book on dealing with public employee unions, the Democrat stormtroopers, in a concessionary environment.
By the ’90s, the Republicans were as much in thrall to the oil industry as were the Democrats of organized labor and greenies. We had a two term Democrat governor from ’94 to ’02 who at first had a labor relations policy of “ask the unions what they want,” but he couldn’t make good on his promises if they cost money because the Legislature wouldn’t give him any. I quit the executive branch in ’96 and worked for the Legislature for the ’97-’99 sessions with the Administration and the unions’ misery as my mission.
By late ’99 when I came back to the Executive Branch it was a lot like having Saul Alinsky pulling you one way and the Governor General of the British East India Company pulling you the other; neither the heads of big unions nor the heads of big oil companies are nice people. By the time I became director of labor relations in ’03, I had a simple mission; keep the unions off the streets, at work, and out of politics. I have a nasty reputation and had the Governor’s ear. They took a lot of personal shots at me early on and tried to get around me and directly to the Governor largely without success. Ironically, the only unions we really had trouble with were the licensed marine unions representing our ferry system employees who had backed Governor Murkowski. Because their lobbyist had ties to the Governor, he alone among the union leaders and lobbyists could get to the Governor, but as far as I know he never got to the Governor without my being there.
We played one was scared and the other glad of it in the first year. The Democrats had left us with all 13 labor agreements expiring in the first six months of the new term. We held their feet to the fire with a status quo wage offer, an offer to cover the anticipated increase in HI costs for the year, and status quo on operational language. They blinked and took it giving us a year of relative peace. We faced contract renewal with all of them in the second year plus we had to negotiate terms for operation of two fast catamaran ferries that the Democrats had bought and which nobody had ever operated in the US under a union contract. We also had several groups of employees who were prohibited from striking but who had interest arbitration to settle their contract terms. We basically held their union security provisions hostage until they accepted a modest 0-2-2 wage offer, status quo HI, and minor operational language changes. With a little help from the union security gun held to their heads, we got voluntary agreements with the ones that could strike and the Troopers and COs went to interest arbitration where we persuaded the arbitrators that they shouldn’t get more than the others got with voluntary settlements. The Troopers and COs took themselves off-cycle with the others so we had to go to interest arbitration with them in the last year as well but by then we had some money, so we took a 3-3-3 and status quo offer to interest arbitration and largely prevailed. As a matter of policy we weren’t averse to giving them some money because they really hadn’t had a wage increase in almost ten years when we took office and it had become very, very difficult to recruit and retain employees in many fields. Our policy goals were to essentially keep them sullen but not mutinous so as to keep them from disrupting work and out of politics, in which we largely succeeded. We abolished the defined benefit pension plan for all new employees beginning in ’06, which the unions vehemently opposed, but we wouldn’t bargain with them about it, and they couldn’t stop it politically; they’re still sullen about it, but they haven’t had the muscle to change it. So, even with that major benefit concession, albeit outside the scope of bargaining, I was able to be the only head of labor relations to keep them all quietly under contract for a whole gubernatorial term. ‘Course, that didn’t do Gov. Murkowski any good, but the Democrats and their union allies were unable to defeat Lisa Murkowski in ’04, though former Governor Knowles had been AFSCME’s made-man since they came to the State in ’88, nor could they elect him Governor in ’06 despite the fact that all save one of the State unions backed Knowles rather than Palin.
So, the lesson that can be drawn is that organized labor is the muscle of the Left, and to rein in the Left, you must rein in unions. It really isn’t hard to do if you firmly control the government. I knew Swartznegger’s head of LR pretty well and we talked about his situation when Swartzenegger tried to rein in the unions in CA. He didn’t have the AG or the Legislature, and the unions handed him his head. He probably could have been successful if he’d had a Republican AG that would support him despite the Legislature’s support for the unions. Since almost all the remaining “private sector” unions live off publicly funded or heavily regulated work, you can use your government’s power to rein them in as well; if they don’t behave, the money doesn’t go to the union contractor, or you don’t contract out to some usually Democrat front non-profit to deliver government services. There’s really a lot you can do, if you have the will, but it starts with recognizing that the unions are the Left’s source of strength and much of their money and organization. Then you elect Republicans to State and local office who are smart enough to understand that unions are NEVER a Republican’s “friend,” and if a union rep puts an avuncular arm around your shoulder, he isn’t showing affection, he’s feeling for the soft spot.
Well-stated points in your article, Andrew.
The Left LIES, and THEIR media swears by it!
They routinely attempt to use moral equivalency in order to reinforce or justify their stereotypes.
Smiley willingly and disingenuously conflated a definitive worldwide movement responsible for thousands of innocent deaths across the globe, with isolated incidences of rage – unrelated in any common cause.
Actually we should be very heartened: the Left is following a pattern that other have followed and will finally discredit themselves so utterly that few will remember them. I cite prohibition, isolationism, and eugenics which all were unassailable until events and their leaders destroyed them.
As for Islam, well, everyone likes what we are doing now because many believe that it is in the process of dying. I suggest that Islam cannot even feed itself, and is vulnerable for that reason alone.
And part of My Tax Money goes to fund this idiot, Tavis Smiley, who works for PBS and NPR. Down with Tavis Smiley for his Lies and Distortions which he gets paid well to tell.
The “But Christians murder too!” response is a frequent one. I call it the “But any dog can bite!” answer, because it is akin to having a wise liberal friend remind you that under varying levels of provocation any dog, even a gentle house pet, might bite someone, when the issue you really want to address at the moment is the large, feral, rabid pit bull chewing on your leg.
There was a time when I had many liberal friends on an online blog. These were good friends, people I knew for years and had even met in real life. Because of this, I always bristled when I’d hear the stereotypes of liberals being unwilling to listen to or provide facts in a discussion, that they’d change the topic, that they’d even start being nasty to you. I didn’t believe it because I knew these people long before we ever started talking about political or social issues.
And then I did start talking about such issues. And little by little… I started seeing those very same stereotypes lived out. Oh, it was subtle at first. After all, these were my good friends, so they did not resort to nastiness. But they’d start calling me “Sweetie” and condescending to me. They’d ignore facts I’d bring up. They’d even change the topic. (In the name of not arguing with friends, you see.
Time continued to go on. Little by little, one by one, these so-called friends left. There were rarely blowups or arguments. I’d just get messages saying things like, “I can’t read your entries anymore.”
And I have also seen it on regular sites online. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve commented on a news story, or NPR, or YouTube or a zillion other online places, only to be met with exactly that sort of thing. It doesn’t matter what the topic is, the response from liberals is always the same: they ignore facts (REPEATEDLY), they change the topic, they throw out false accusations and when you refute them or ask them for proof they ignore it. The final step is name calling, swearing and a flouncing off in a huff.
My observation through the years of having this happen over and over and over? The stereotypes about liberals are absolutely true.
Samiliar experiences here as well. I once read an article by a writer challenging one of his long time female friends on her feminism and was surprised with her honest answer. She told him that if she took in to consideration what he said, which was for the most part true, she would have to reexamine her position based on the presented facts and that would be too painful, so it’s easier for her to ignore him. Which ended the friendship.
Being forced to reexamine your views based on the presented facts takes some personal honesty, and a little courage, which is lacking in alot of people. It’s easier to ignore, drop or attack the other party. This way they never have to confront the truth or the ignorance and can continue feeling secure in their false worldview which they will ferociously defend.
I see just enough CNN to know that they are full on liars. Why would I waste my time on people who LIE to me? What has happened to ‘reporters’ and ‘jounalists’? They aren’t even ashamed. They deserve nothing but my heartiest disgust. Tavis Smiley, indeed. What a sniveling, lying fool.
I cannot decide whether the Leftist ideologues and elites like Tavis Smiley and et al who regurgitate the same insipid narratives they were spoonfed in their Ivy League Post-colonial post-Structuralist neo-Marxist classrooms are being Goebbellian or Orwellian.
I have not heard of this person Tavis Smiley before this day. He must want to remain unknown because he is perhaps self-aware that his views stand on the edge of insanity. This young lady in the interview must be selling her books from the trunk of her car ; to have to appear with such a foolish man. If anyone has a few dollars please give it to her just as soon as she opens her car trunk ! Please