The Namby-Pamby State
Much has been written about the hypertrophic growth of the nanny state and its unremitting assault on the dignity and independence of the responsible individual citizen. Its ill effects are seen everywhere in the devitalized West as an increasing number of people, approaching critical mass, have come to rely on government welfare and special entitlements while progressively abiding by the dictates of political correctness. Everyone is considered equal regardless of personal initiative, natural talents, or the extent of one’s contribution to the economic and cultural life of society. Everyone is empowered. Indolence is a right. No one must be offended (except capitalists, Christians, and white males). No one on the take is to be blamed for parasitical behavior. A spade is never a spade but a silverware fork. “Fair share” is the reigning mantra of the day, an Orwellian inversion if ever there was one. This means that the productive class will pay even more in taxes than it already does and approximately half the population, which pays no taxes, will reap the surplus. The sense of due and exemption is pervasive.
What Bruce Thornton writes about the Obama presidency is true of the neo-Marxist welfare state wherever it exists: the expansion of intrusive government power “in order to achieve dubious utopian notions like ‘income equality,’ ‘social justice,’ and ‘redistribution.’” As New York mayor Michael Bloomberg opined, “choice, gay rights, the environment are the real issues, more important than economics.” Where the money is to come from to fund these goods, if “economics” is relegated to secondary status, remains an open question. At the same time, the putatively marginal or disenfranchised are regarded as helpless victims of hidebound tradition and extortionate privilege and are not held responsible for their own plight or answerable for whatever condition they may resent or object to. The principles that govern the age in which we live are (1) obliviousness to fact and (2) unearned innocence; in other words, reality is seen as infinitely interpretable and the concept of accountability has been jettisoned.
We live in a time in which the marginal is conceived as central, and in which responsibility cannot be ascribed to the individual for his position in the world. Such attitudes form the collagen that binds the institutional practices of the nanny state, perhaps better dubbed the namby-pamby state, into a coherent if irrational whole. It assumes that lack is nearly always the fault of some other element or influence, almost never of the self, and that giving offense or wounding the sensibility of a member of a designated victim group verges on the criminal. Undifferentiated need is elevated over specific merit, and feeling is paramount, trumping reason, obligation, and genuine probity. The common individual is no longer understood as a nexus of thought, energy, moral conviction, and spiritual autonomy, but as a malleable lump of helpless suffering and justified desire to be pitied and served. And those who insist on inviolate personhood are conversely demeaned as oppressors, tyrants, and/or narcissists.
The namby-pamby state has enshrined the principle of bureaucratic supremacy ostensibly in the interest of its citizens’ welfare. On the one hand, it legislates down to the minor details of everyday life, which it punitively monitors and controls, everything from seat belts to Girl Scout cookies to recycling habits to school lunch guidelines to the shape of bananas. On the other hand, it conceives of its citizens, especially if they are not wealthy or successful, as victims of a repressive politico-economic system who need to be coddled, catered to, subsidized, and provided with every service regardless of worthiness or contribution to society, thus rendering them feckless and dependent while convincing them of their right to favored treatment.
One thinks of the Czech student, quoted by Rael Jean Isaac in The Coercive Utopians, who described Americans as “pampered children of your permissive, affluent society, throwing temper tantrums because father gave them only education, security and freedom.” This diagnosis goes back more than a generation; the situation has deteriorated markedly since then. Europeans are even further ahead in grievance mongering, expecting the state to act in locus parentis. Worse, what they are receiving is not education but diplomas, not merely security (and not much of that, given the unsustainability of the present system and the incursion of Islamic supremacists into the culture) but asylum from reality, not freedom but freebies, with the inevitable flaccid consequences: historical ignorance, geopolitical weakness, and entrenched stagflation. But to adopt a critical perspective on such license and opportunism is to be stigmatized as a social atavism or fiscal raptor. In the words of Walter Williams, “To be judgmental about modern codes of conduct is to risk being labelled a prude, racist, sexist or homophobe.”
“The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.”
–from “Harrison Bergeron,” by Kurt Vonnegut
We have embraced the spirit of self-contempt cloaked in the ideology of self-esteem.
The cure for all this malaise of course is Ronald Reagan style leadership.
In 2017 the first speech I want to hear from then President Marco Rubio is one that goes like this:
All men are created equal!
That means that the welfare state created by my predecessor has to go.
I will not tolerate demeaning a my brothers be they Hispanic, black, poor, wealthy, male, female or whatever to a life of bondage/serfdom living on govt. welfare.
My brothers and sisters are all better than that. I intend to allow them to bring out the best in all.!
With that we echo in a new United Sates one that had been all but buried under the communist regime from 2008-2016.It will be a new dawn in
America and I can’t wait.
“In 2017 the first speech I want to hear from then President Marco Rubio”
Still NOT a Natural Born Citizen. Not to mention Rubio is a raging RINO.
Right and who is your choice?
Who is my choice? Someone who didn’t accept a kickback no-show job from mommy taxpayer in exchange for looking the other way when RINO Florida Republicans in his inner circle of budget advisors wrote themselves blank checks — funneled through the community college system . . . and is now playing footsie with the illegal alien advocates, despite being touted by beltway conservatives as being their own clean articulate answer to Obama, in complete abdication to identity politics’ ugly ascendence on the Right.
Next question?
It doesn’t matter what our choice is, because Hillary Clinton will be the next President. Do you doubt it? Well, okay, a lot can happen in four years. But right now that looks like wishful thinking. What Republican possible candidate has her stature, experience in government and in political campaigning? I don’t see anybody, sad to say. The country will decide that it is her turn, she deserves it, first female blah-blah, waited her turn, loyal blah-blah, and so forth. She even has time now to position herself as the anti-Obama if need be. I wish as much as anyone that conservatives and Republicans had some real leadership, but that is hidden somewhere among the younger set and will take time to develope. Meanwile, there stands Hillary astride the current of history, with the entire Democratic party, the media, the literati and the cognoscenti behind her.
to Tina Trent
And I’m sure you have lots of links and documentation for all your pap.
By the way where is it?
I think I need to find some help, because a thought just went through my mind.–”Compared to Obama, Hillary sounds pretty good.”
Any suggestions?
Marco Rubio was born in the United States (Miami) to immigrant residents who were here legally. Even the anchor babies of illegal immigrants who arrive while in labor are natural born citizens of the United States, so your claim that Rubio is not a natural born citizen has no basis in fact. Please provide a link to a serious argument to the contrary.
No – people born in the United States to foreign nationals are citizens of the US but they are NOT Natural Born Citizens – who, by definition, MUST be the child of citizens of the United States. Rubio’s parent’s were not citizens at the time of his birth.
Neither is Jindal and neither is Obama. All are children of foreign nationals.
Correct. As long as Rubio’s parents were in the USA at the time of his birth and were “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (i.e., subject to US law) then Rubio is a natural born citizen. His parents did not have to be citizens themselves at the time. The children of a foreign diplomat, who is not subject to the jurisdiction of US law, would not be citizens. There is some grey area when it comes to undocumented illegals, or foreigners on temporary visas, regarding the extent to which they are “subject to the jurisdiction” of US law, but there is no doubt that permanent residents, even if not yet citizens, are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
lolly,
Where do you get these “facts”? I challenge you to name any U.S. court or law professor that agrees with you.
Marco Rubio was born in America. that means he is a citizen.
give it up already. haven’t you birther types learned anything?
constitution, idiot
Except there’s not really much evidence that Rubio would give such a speech. Or at least give such a speech and follow it up with substantive policy action. He’s already giving speeches touting the Republicans’ “compassion” via a willingness to dispense entitlements.
“In 2017 the first speech I want to hear from then President Marco Rubio is one that goes like this:”
You are far more likely to haer such a speech from a President Palin.
Hey, a President Palin would be just fine with me as well.
Just one problem with Palin. She couldn’t get elected dog catcher in this country and she knows it and she is smart enough not to run. You have to appeal to a much larger voting block than she does, to even have a chance. Romney was defeated by the non-religious left and they are a growing group of voters who see their government as the next best thing to a God of their own. The Gang Green and many other greedy bastards have known this for a long time. If you want someone who can win the religious vote,, you better work on increasing the size of that voting group first, because these days they are badly outnumbered.
That’s what they said about Reagan in 1977!
JD, you haven’t been paying attention. Reagan would have lost this year if he had carried the same demographics as Romney did. The electorate has changed. There aren’t enough people who aren’t living off of government hand outs anymore. Although Palin would appeal to most of the posters on this blog, she wouldn’t have a chance against the next Communist the Democrats will run. The country has decided what it wants and it wants a future of shared misery. This was the chance to defeat the Communists and we blew it worrying about whether our guy was conservative enough, whatever that is these days. Our guy was not the Communist and that is all we needed to know about him to know which choice to make. And, the Communists won. It was that simple and the voters of this country were still not able to figure it out. Only God can help us now.
Jim,
You didn’t pay attention.
Reagan said things Romney never would.
Reagan called out the oppression of the Democrats – he didn’t say carter was likeable but in over his head, he said carter hid behind a dictionary ignoring the cries for help of the unemployed.
Reagan never let one attack upon him go without responding. Reagan had his Famous Quip for the Media when he said, “There you go again.”
Stephenopolous would not have been able to get the ball rolling on the so called “War on Women” with Reagan as Reagan would have put him in his place.
Don’t tell me Reagan wouldn’t have won – Reagan made people trust him because he spoke from his heart and beleived what he said.
Reagan, was forever confounding his handlers by saying things in speeches that they told him not to – Romney adhered to their advice 100%.
Reagan would have made Obama look exactly like what he is – a huxter and a fraud. And he would have had people trusting in what he planned to do and not wondering if there was some Grand Scheme going on to sell them out.
JD, Go back and read my postings and try to finish reading them before launching your next diatribe in my direction. I have not said Reagan could not have beaten Obama in a straight up campaign. Unfortunately, none of us will ever get a chance to see that happen. But I did say that if Reagan had won the same demographics that he won against Carter, with the same percentages he won them, he would not have won in 2012 because the percentages of voters in nearly all of those demographic groups has gone down, as a percentage of all the voters, precipitously. In other words, Reagan would have had to gotten higher percentages among groups he lost in order to win in 2012. I was not arguing against Reagan’s ability to do that because I actually voted in that election and I am well aware of the persuasive abilities Ronald Reagan possessed. But Reagan was also reviled by the media, and there is no way to project how he would have done against a media darling like Obama. All the dynamics have changed, and clearly not for the better. But I do know that whining about whether our candidate was up to the task was not the way to defeat a Communist who was already living in our White House. We the People were given a clear choice(I have said that three times now), and we made the decision to extend Obama’s term in office. You bought the Democrat talking points about Mitt Romney and that is the only way you could have arrived at your judgement of him. It was never up to the Republicans to go out and find you a Ronald Reagan for you to vote for. It might have been nice, but it was far from necessary. We will all live to regret the results of our collective decision.
You fail to recognize that Ronald Reagan had things going for him that simply do not exist today. Even though the media players and academia loathed him they were not so deeply entrenched into the culture as they are today. The media had declared that he was a reckless dolt but they didn’t have the receptive audience that exists now. The millions upon millions of the victim class, the brainwashed, and the clueless. And they weren’t an actual working arm of the Democrat party. The Democrat party was much less the near 100% Socialist Party USA that it is presently. All of these factors existed but not in their present mature and majority state. A corrupt and unknown Obama could not have gotten past the gate to admission into the political arena in 1980. Reagan had a track record that resonated with a majority and his rise to the top was doable. Now if any candidate were to give the declaration that you wish for he/she will be destroyed immediately by a lying, conniving, and bought-and-paid for media and the over-whelming millions of the “where’s mine” electorate. America is the reflection of Barack Obama and the reverse. He is truly the man for the times. Ronald Reagan represents almost nothing that represents the values of the majority today. Nor do our Founders. Sadly we are living in a new reality. Get adjusted to the fact that 1980’s America is gone.
I’m also talking about Charisma!It’s not important its everything!! Rubio/Palin have it,few others do.
Surely you jest! The instant Mr. and/or Ms. Charisma even hint that the freebies are under review, let alone must be earned, they will be the most charismatic losers that ever ran for office. For the majority of the voting public (most, but not all, actually citizens) the days of the misty-eye at the playing of The Star Spangled Banner and reverence for individuality, personal responsibility, liberty, and the Creator is a joke that no amount of charisma will re-kindle since those factors are foreign to most in the first place. Re-read the excellent posting that Mr. Solway just presented and that you are commenting upon. He is telling you that the America that you wish for is gone. It’s going to take one hell of a lot more than charisma and old Reagan speeches to reclaim our American magnificence. Most of this country is humming “The Age Of Obama” to the tune of “The Age of Aquarius”. That’s exactly what charisma has wrought. Join the new reality.
Yooper writes the sad, sorry truth. The majority in the United States as it is presently constituted no longer value the traditions of self-reliance and ordered liberty they have inherited. The political institutions, always hindered by the ambitions of conniving individuals and cabals, have themselves been corrupted. We no longer inhabit a federal republic.
The situation has deteriorated beyond the state of electoral repair, at least at the national level. Some states may employ nullification and interposition to avoid the worst effects of a fascistic Administration, but federalism itself has been severely damaged.
It is a state of affairs that cannot endure. A country cannot survive if the majority of its citizens, in order to wallow in dependency, submit to the orders of a power-crazed guardian class. But since the correction cannot come at the voting booth, it will come not gently. By what means it will come–secession with or without civil strife, a jihadi triumph, financial satrapry to the Chinese, a natural catastrophe striking a populace no longer prepared to survive it–I cannot say. Bill Whittle has suggested that the gods of gods of virtue will want their stuff back. Paying that price will be very, very painful.
Yooper, that was right on. But I wish it weren’t. Only God can save this country now. My only glimmer of hope is that I believe God put all of our founders in the same place at the same time so that a Republic of the people could be tried. It may be failing, but I think it proved itself to be a worthy effort.
And who are the driving forces behind the namby pamby state? Of course,they are those who seek TOTAL control over every aspect of people’s lives. In fact, they are the most inhumane forces, bar none.
And it is this aspect of their twisted thinking/plans which must be exposed to those who haven’t a clue about their push for collectivism – the graveyard of millions!
Rational westerners must expose and peel back their looking glass – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/10/05/if-it-looks-like-a-socialistmarxistcommunist-plan-it-is-peekingpeeling-back-into-obamas-looking-glass-his-surrogates-too-their-bomblets-waiting-to-explode-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
It is a filthy and arduous task but it must be done.There is NO other way.
There is indeed a strong resemblance between Obama’s view of social democracy and the Leninist program of such historians as the late Eric Hobsbawm. I wrote about them both here: http://clarespark.com/2012/12/08/hobsbawm-obama-israel/. But I would not go so far as to say that there is total control either intended or in effect. “Total control” is a fantasy from childhood. It has rarely occurred in human history, and I agree with Hobsbawm who rejected the term “totalitarian” as a false equation between the Soviet Union and Hitler’s Germany. Yes, they were both bad and bloody, but they had different trajectories. We should be more careful about how we use loaded language.
True, the Soviets and the Germans were on slightly(read Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism”) political trajectory, but the word totalitarian applies just as well to either of them. The relative success or failure of the application of that ideal is debatable, but Collectivist philosophy proves always to result in big and powerful government and serfdom for the peoples. The definition of political terms usually gets pretty messy unless such a mess is the goal of a participant in the discussion, I says.
Just naming what has been done a Nanny State, with much encouragement and support from the people who shall pay the bill in whatever way demanded, is positive proof the totalitarian statists, big government multiculturalist progressive “liberals”/ Coercive Utopians have won.
Were there genuine, robust and meaningful large scale protest to what is happening is it probable Nanny State agents admonish with a finger wag, or glance of disapproval? Example in the behaviours and insults from some congressmen/representatives of the People and their finger wagging Media bien pensant to the Tea Party?
Or more likely the “caring compassionates” bring out literally the big guns as other Coercive Utopian/”Nanny States, have and are still doing when they decide the State is endangered. Menaced by citizens who have finally understood the value what has been given up by them.
GIVEN UP to the lure of the FREE prettily packaged goodies offered by “predatory smiling, loving, compassionate” compatriots. Whose only wish is “the good of the people”.
Infantilising over two generations the protected, safe, naive and trusting children/citizens of the nation that needed to be “fundamentally transformed” as penalty for its badness, its “shame”.
Little Red Riding Hood visiting grandma. Finding too late smiling, salavering wolf in grandma’s clothes. Progress to Pied Piper piping the children to their deaths. “Feel your pain compassionate liberals” who “never give a sucker an even break”.
We generally understand the true value of what we have lost when lost and gone,gone. whether stolen or freely surrendered to bribes and threat.
Once understood too often too late for anything but lament or….
Little Red Riding Hood visiting grandma. Finding too late smiling, salavering wolf in grandma’s clothes. Progress to Pied Piper piping the children to their deaths. “Feel your pain compassionate liberals” who “never give a sucker an even break”.
We generally understand the true value of what we have lost when lost and gone,gone. whether stolen or freely surrendered to bribes and threat.
Once understood too often too late for anything but lament or….
Just too good had to be repeated.
Psy-ops at their finest hour.Only to be repeated over and over and over. Each time in a different set of wolf’s clothing.
The three scariest words in the English language: “Let me help.” (Technically, in light of how far we’ve fallen from freedom and into the clutches of the desk-bound, that might better read, “I will help.”)
Your three words developed further by Ronald Reagan’s “the scariest words in the language, We’re from the government and we’re here to help”.
Thoreau’s got a good one too, “If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life.”
This article is a very good description of tribalism. Barzun’s book “From Dawn to Decadence, a Cultural History of the Past 500 Years” describes the rise of civilization from a tribal system (the Dawn) to the present age (Decadence) in which we are descending into a new tribalism which Solway so cogently defines. Tribalism as a constricting force is discussed in “Freedom, Tribalism, and Creativity, a Challenge to My Syrian Friends” which I have just had published. J. Freeman
A friend of mine, who did some missionary work in rural Central America, said that one thing he noted about the very poor is how focused and deliberate they were. This made me think about America’s future, and I concluded that the only possible up-side to our approaching economic collapse is that it will force a reordering of priorities. I doubt very much that we will hear many calls for gender-neutral bathrooms or free birth control for 30 year old grad students when people are lining up for bread. Not much comfort, but at least I won’t be lectured about inclusiveness, patriarchy and Warren Buffett’s moral superiority while I’m eating my crust.
And yet, we still seem to expect the state to feed up when it all goes down the tubes…
I have been dutifully paying my Social Security taxes for 35 years. The least the government can give me is a crust of bread. And I always expect the government to do the least they can do.
I have been paying all sorts of payroll taxes,sales taxes and excise taxes since 1970. If you are looking for fairness, look elsewhere.Those of us who produce have become nothing more than targets.
Don’t ya just love the contradictions of the New Left? They don’t want “society” preaching or mandating values on them. And, then they vote for politicans who put in red light cameras that spy on them and write them tickets. And for politicans who tell them what kind of toilets and light bulbs they are allowed to buy, plus the size of a soda they can have. They are the advocates for free birth control for a thrity year old grad student attending a university that costs $50,000 to attend.
Don’t ya just love the contradictions of the New Left? They don’t want “society” preaching or mandating values on them.
You’re not seeing the big picture. Mandates about toilets and light bulbs affect everyone. Railing about abortion as social conservatives do is effectively a war on females and their choices. Red light cams are impersonal. Rich, poor — everyone obeys traffic law. Gay marriage amendments and attempts to define marriage as social conservatives do is effectively a war on the LGBT community.
SUMMARY: toilets, light bulbs, traffic cams: not personal, not judgemental. Gay marriage, abortion: personal, judgemental.
Do you see the difference?
What happens here is that rather than a focused voice of the GOP rejecting government control of your life, they have let the social conservatives run amok and threaten *replacement* governmental control. The GOP is saying that they reject some government control and are quite happy using government to implement different control. “This” government control is bad, but “that” government control is good! WTF? If the GOP were about rejection of government control, they would also reject the social conservative attempt at it as well. The social conservatives are just as statist as their hated opposition. And because their brand of statism is personal, it is viewed by the electorate as more loathesome.
The electorate then gets hobson’s choice — do we want social conservative war on gays and women (at least for now; who knows who the next target is), or do we vote for crap light bulbs? Crap light bulbs it is, then.
It’s not the new left. It’s the statist social conservatives handing the left everything they want on a platter.
No, random pretend to be engineer. It is you who don’t see the difference correctly. The government is not a good substitute God for Godless people. Precisely because the dictates of Government are applied to all of us. Religious people in this country have almost no power to dictate anything to anyone. They may oppose abortion on demand because they think it is the same as murder(an opinion I don’t share with them), but the Government’s position is even more destructive. They think population growth is a threat to their ability to act as the caretaker of all of us. Based on the steady decline of the prosperity of us average Americans, it is clear that we have already traveled the “Road to Serfdom”. The worst for all of us is yet to come and I have very little concern about whether abortion on demand is illegal compared to my complete fear of what a malignant, and now metastasized, Government has in store for us. Dare I ask God to help us, or would that be too oppressive to non-believers?
The government is not a good substitute God for Godless people
Not the argument, Jim. People perceive they’re being forced to choose between two vectors of statism, and they are choosing the less personal and invasive one. Only rabid greens, for instance, think banning 100w light bulbs as a GOOD thing. Think in terms of longer term vector, not the immediate. People in groups (voters) tend to be smarter than the sum of the parts. Fascinating, that.
The argument you made was that Republicans will force their morals(whatever you imagine those to be) down your throat if they win an election. You assume that the Democrats won’t and I believe that you are wrong and that you have it backwards. You don’t have any more evidence that the Republicans will become totalitarians than I have that Democrats will do so. The choice you imagine is based on a straw man that has been created by the Democrats and characterized as a typical Republican. I am a Republican and I have no intention of forcing my beliefs on other people, just as you don’t. Having said that, I will admit that the majority of the people see the choice the way you present it. I just think that the reason that people think they are making make this choice is based on the successful characterization of the typical Republican being a statist(as you now put it), and you apparently don’t. I am not wringing my hands about why the Republicans lost to the Collectivists, I am just pissed off that so many people have bought into the Collectivist propaganda. They are giving away their own liberty and stealing mine from me in the process.
I am just pissed off that so many people have bought into the Collectivist propaganda. They are giving away their own liberty and stealing mine from me in the process.
Jim, we almost agree. Re statism = social conservatism this comes from Pournelle here:
http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm
Read the text; you’ll see that (social) conservatism is fundamentally statist, no different than the socialism Obama is accused of. Bear in mind Pournelle self-ID’s as conservative (i.e. he’s no more of a rabid lefty than I am.) There is no collectivist propaganda, and none is needed. What people were being offered in the election was NOT liberty vs statism, it was two competing statism vectors.
This graph by the way is one of the more difficult things to get across at this web site; most of the conservatives see themselves as standing for liberty and anti-statism and freedom… and simply can’t see that they’re just as statist as the socialists. It screws with their entire self image.
I am pretty sure left does not adequately describe Democrats and Right doesn’t adequately describe Republicans. What I am saying is that you are assuming too much about the political will of a fairly small religious group. First, you assume that they are all Republicans and then you assume that they all want to force their beliefs on you in the public area. Yes, there are people who fit these two descriptions, but no, they don’t represent a large percentage of Republican voters, much less what would happen to your lifestyle if the candidate they favor happens to win. I would say that the percentage of Democrats, who are also collectivists in a political sense, might just be a lot higher and a lot more willing to force their will upon you. Because you cannot see the importance of having a smaller and more subservient government as your only protection from these statist tendencies, you have bought the story from a bunch of Communists, that a fringe group of Christians would be more dangerous Collectivists than they are. I believe that Evangelical(social conservatives) are a pretty small sect within a very large group of Christians who, taken as a whole, tend to vote mostly for Collectivists of the Democrat persuasion. Social Conservatives are not the real problem and certainly not a reason for sticking with the Communists. The reality of what you say depends upon the reality of the Communist storyline. That is my own opinion and so far I’m sticking with it.
First, you assume that they are all Republicans and then you assume that they all want to force their beliefs on you in the public area.
Hi Jim
I still think we agree moreso than not. I vote R, never D, and I don’t view social conservatives as a threat to me personally. Their ability to e.g. overturn women’s rights is nonexistent and no big deal. They’re noisy.
However because I vote R and never D I view social conservatives as the worst possible threat to R’s. Any why? Because their threatened brand of statism is taken seriously by OTHERS… and they are destroying the R brand. They aren’t doing squat to the D’s. Just us.
It’s not what **I** assume but what the VOTERS assume.
What I have been telling you here is A) that the social conservatives are statists, B) the voters perceive them as such, and C) voters associate social conservative statism with the R’s.
While you and I agree re the overall toothlessness of the social conservatives and neither of us feel personally threatened, the point of the exercise here isn’t to discuss our innermost femmy feelings but rather to have a hard look at what the voters perceive and then fix that. In my view that means the R’s need to jettison the social conservatives, period.
Others will read this and conclude that I’m against morals or whatever. No. I’m against losing, and I’m against losing to those who ARE a threat to freedom. But do you think the social conservatives will take one for the team? Hell no. They’ll simply screech about being persecuted; it’s all about them.
Oh, and by the way, Jim, don’t kid yourself; the social conservatives wouldn’t hesitate to enforce their beliefs if they had the mechanism to make it happen.
Okay Randomguy, one more try. just for you. Thanks for beginning your post with another, out of context, sentence extracted from my post. Either you are flattering yourself with your ability to copy and paste, or you are a polemic who uses this as a part of his insatiable need to insult whomever disagrees with him. I reply to the latter postulate. Write you own damned sentences from now on! Thanks for also putting your last comment in outline form so I can understand it. As yo point A) in the outline: You are making an assumption that I don’t share with this blanket comment. I just could be that you are mistaking statist behavior for the need, in a society as large as ours, to have rules of behavior that go beyond what is instinctive for us as human beings. As a matter of survival, it is instinctive for humans to lie, cheat, and steal to get the things that will make us safer. It even means killing or enslaving unfamiliar people who are instinctively perceived as a threat to our own safety. It was discovered, thousands of years ago, that these behaviors could not be allowed if larger societies of people were to try to live together. Many of these “moral values” were adopted and are basic cannons of the religious crowd in America. In this sense, so called “social conservatives” act as if they are statists. They can be picked apart around the edges, but the core of what they espouse cannot be denied by any well meaning secularist, that is, if we want our culture to survive. B) Get to the crux of the issue I have with you. I know no social conservatives who want to restrict your rights because they want to jam their religious beliefs down your throat. They do what they do because they have a strong conviction that what is breaking the back of our free society is the breakdown of moral values which they believe are prerequisite to any of the freedoms we enjoy in our culture. They simply believe that abortion on demand is a moral choice that results more in the destruction of our culture than in its enhancement. And any good conservative can see the value of moral pillars in the construction and maintenance of any society which allows basic human liberties. None of us wish that human nature has to be modified with “morals” in order to allow the building of a large culture. “The voters”, as a rule, don’t understand that viewpoint because “Hey, they are trying to take away my free abortion clinics and that could cost me money I don’t want to spend”. If this is enough to alienate “the voters”, there is nothing that can change that. But I assert that it is “the voters” who need some re-education and not so much the “social conservatives”. I use abortion as an illustration only. The point is that there are under-girding pillars of moral values which allow for the building of any large culture and “the voters” seem less aware of that fact than “social conservatives” do. I will give you your point B) but I think the basic stupidity of “the voters” is the culprit, not the overbearing nature of “social conservatives” fearful of the collapse of the whole culture. One view is possibly justifiable and the other view is based on complete ignorance of the need for morals and is not even possibly justifiable beyond the desire for free stuff. C) Yes it is true that “the voters” generally associate “social conservatives” as embodiments of the official positions of the Republican Party and that can cost the Republicans elections. But I believe that it is the Democrats and their minions in the media, who push this idea in order to get “the voters” to vote for them instead. Republicans can not appeal to these “free stuff” voters in any way except to promise “free stuff voters” more free stuff than the Democrats do, because “economic conservatives” a group you and I belong to, won’t allow it for our own reasons. This is the dilemma that actually attaches “social Conservatives” to the much larger group of “economic conservatives” that Republicans must have in any election. Sort of like peanut butter and jelly, ain’t it? One comes attached to the other and neither can be attached to the Collectivist political persuasions. My suggestion to you is that you spend a little less time blaming “social conservatives” for the Republican defeat, and focus more on the real threat to freedom, which is the current Democrat Party that is being led around by their noses by the Communists under their noses. I am tired now. I hope you aren’t a polemic because I have wasted way too much time with you if you are..
Jim
continuing outline form
A) I conclude that social conservatives are statists because of the Pournelle chart showing and proving it, not because it’s convenient to do so.
B) Voter perception of so-cons as statists: even here at PJ for 2 weeks much of the post election analysis was focused on media bias and the claim that the obama campaign invented the war on women and pushed gay marriage buttons so as to deflect from the crap obama record. If voters have — as you seem to think — little or nothing to fear from so-cons, then how, precisely, would this media bias stuff even work? Do you have an explanation that isn’t fanciful far right stuff, something that would be passable as analysis at university or professional level? No. You don’t.
C) voters associate so-cons with the GOP. We lost. QED.
Sorry my poorly written discussion did not show you what I was talking about. I hope you will read Hayek’s “The Fatal Conceit” for a much more thorough discussion than I was able to present concerning the inability of Conservatives to ever remove the religious right from their midst, and the politically unwise nature of any attempt to do so. Please also forgive my poor typing and editing, my excuse being that I have a cataract on one eye and it causes focusing problems for me. Be very careful about blaming social conservatives for a public perception that is not of their own making, and of assuming that you are reading an actual proof of anything sociological. The logic required for such proofs often includes accepting generalities as premises. That is the domain of the famous misnomer, the political scientist. I wanted you to find a target for your ire which is more properly located on the collectivist side of the isle.
I agree with the previous comments. That said, the system is only contradictory if seen as a system. For players seeking this or that benefit, however, it is better seen as a pyramid scheme. Like pyramid marketers who must con more cohorts of similarly greedy marketers, they “give up” this or that freedom in exchange for something they have decided they want. The ensuing “tragedy of the commons” is not important to them – yet. Of course, it will be when the whole thing has collapsed and there aren’t any more interest groups to sucker. When that happens, we will re-learn who has rights and what they are.
Part of the key to both denying the legitimacy of the concept of Individualism AND ceasing to hold people accountable for poor choices is this sociological redefinition of people as merely the product of their interactions with the environment and other people. Then it becomes society’s fault the child’s environment was not better or they failed to have access to brighter people. Must now provide Head Start from Age 1 on. If someone is bright, it was just the luck of their environment and they are to have no credit for a better mind or more industrious work habits.
http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/distributive-justice-is-not-enough-we-must-break-the-illusion-of-the-unitary-self/ is how and why the Left intends to use education not just to achieve what they are now calling the Fair Shares Society but to psychologically break the concept of the unitary self. It is based on the words of Ohio State prof john a powell who has been quite busy recently spreading his agenda. If that sounds graphic I went through the five dimensions yesterday that describes literally trying to create emotional existential crises in K-12 classrooms in students to reorient them socially and politically toward a more Communitarian mindset where they feel compelled to act “for the Common Good.”
And if you wonder what has caused the increase in school violence in what used to be good neighborhoods. Well, practices that sound like brainwashing to create unconscious compulsions to act might be a start.
In the desire to gain political change and a citizen who will be properly malleable we will be left with debris that expects and needs to be taken care of. Education should be a Public Good but it is very dangerous to assume that it necessarily is. It is also one of the premier stealth social weapons the world has ever seen.
We are liable to end up with Namby-Pamby People for this Namby-Pamby Society while the world itself remains very dangerous with millions hating the West. And we are unilaterally intellectually disarming.
David, I’ve agitated long for a name to the scourge that follows Realism, Nihilism, Communism, Maoism . . .
Since 1840 these plaguey creeds have morphed into multiple Hydras.
In order to combat your enemy, a name is needed for him.
Namby-Pamby State just won’t do.
I DO like “epistemologically neutered” though.
I prefer “Group Thinkers” as embodied by the Gang Green. Of course, “Borg” would work for most of them too.
And don’t be dismissive of “swarm intgelligence”.
It’s the foundation of Libertarianism and the Austrian/Chicago Schools of Economics.
And is well founded in physics (Maxwell’s laws of thermodynamics) and mathematics.
The namby-pamby state has followed the recommendations of George Brock Chisholm, first director general of the World Health Organization, who, in a speech for the Conference on Education at Asilomar, California (September 11, 1954) advocating world government, advised: “it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family tradition, national patriotism, and religious dogmas.”
I’ve been fighting on each of these fronts for years. The ignorance of the “wo/man on the street” regarding the shrinking of our freedoms and the demonization of the family, partriotism, individualism, and religion (except Islam), under the rubrics of “multiculturalism,” “feminism,” and “socialism” is frightening.
The Asilomar reference is very interesting. So many ‘New Age’ or ‘New World Order’ events and festivals, including music and hippie gatherings, occurred in or around Asilomar and other locations nearby (Big Sur and Monterey Peninsula). Big events that helped shape American culture, were precursors to Woodstock, and inculcated many young people with fond and distorted notions of happiness through dope and alternative life styles. All sorts of rumors of intelligence organizations being involved and even distributing drugs – connections to some of the Laurel Canyon musicians of the 60s and their peculiar family background. Maybe the United States (and not only) has seen its ‘elites’ deliberately attempting to destroy the values that created it for 40/50 years. Frightening.
Chisholm would be pleased with the UN’s dedication.
Only now they’ve traded the prosaic term “World Government” for the less obvious “Transnationalism”, though the goal is identical.
And they’ve come out of the closet, actively pushing for supervision of the legal and economic functioning of, in particular, that nasty United States.
Another move away from responsibility is the “diseasing” and “medicalizing” of the society. Psychiatry and addictions “treatment” now sees people as victims of disease and no linger responsible for choice. we are all depressed because of a lack of hormones of a certain type. It contributes to the point of the article.
I was intrigued when I read about something they call “The Doomsday Personality.”
The Doomsday Personality is a person who finds themselves in a Life or Death situation, concludes they are not going to survive, and then focuses on one thing and one thing only, “How many of those S.O.B.’s can I take with me.”
(One point they didn’t note is that this person often survives a situation they reasonably should not have.)
Audy Murphy, is a Classic Example of the Doomsday Personality.
Isn’t it wonderful that our Heros are now declared “Mentaly Ill”????
Keep it simple
Obama wants to give the uninformed,uneducated and slovenly the illgotten gains of the educated and successfull.
Im signing up for deferred comp to limit my income and the amount I pay
Liquidating stock positions in favor ofAMT taxfree bonds. I have my second house (parents live in it) up for sale and will not buy another.
Fired my lawn care service,premium tv and reduced my charitable giving
Thank you Democrats and Mr President for being so clear on how I should react to your policies. You will now get “my fair share” of taxes…about $55,000 less than the last 4 years
10-4 on this philosophy.
Perfect example of what I call “going Galt in place.”
Also a great example of how reality works.
The fatal error of most government projections is to change one variable in the model while assuming all others remain fixed. Raise tax rates yet believe that taxpayers will not adjust their positions in response is stupid on it’s face yet precisely how predictions of increased revenue are arrived at.
Anyone with anything of value worth protecting will, get ready for it, protect it. And when millions respond to the coming new order by acting exactly like this last commenter the powers that be will be astonished at how their predictions for success have failed.
To paraphrase Harry Harrison, when you find yourself in a concrete jungle learn to become a stainless steel rat.
Lar, I think the time has come for all of us to be Pyrrans.
Undereducated “elites” are usually social sciences and law graduates with NO science or mathematics — NONE.
They are completely incapable of dynamic planning (multivariate, unfolding solutions). Thus their social engineering always fails, since humans are an organic lot. When they fail, these pseudo-intellectuals that coerced their brainy solutions into the population turn to violent force to bring the hoi polloi to heel.
Get ready for the American Pol Pot.
I take strong exception to your title “Namby-Pamby State.” This does not describe the State as it is or as it wishes to be.
Otherwise love the piece.
If it was sustainable, I would be worried. Strangely enough, I would have a greater fear of the creeping state if I did not ultimately believe its actions would lead to its collapse. Basically, as the state fails, it will attempt to spawn ever larger bureaucracies to deal with each subsequent failure, peak government will be reached in short order, followed by collapse. Reality is harsh, and in the end, it wins, every time.
It’s not like we weren’t warned…
“Thus, taking each individual by turns in its powerful hands and kneading him as it likes, the sovereign extends its arms over society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of small, complicated, painstaking, uniform rules through which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot clear a way to surpass the crowd; it does not break wills, but it softens them, bends them and directs them; it rarely forces one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one’s acting; it does not destroy, it prevents things from being born; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, compromises, enervates, extinguishes, dazes and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrial animals of which the government is the shepherd.”
~Alexis de Toqueville, Democracy In America (early 19th century)
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.
~ C. S. Lewis
Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as a heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere. Destroy this spirit and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own doors.
~Abraham Lincoln
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
~Abraham Lincoln
Amen Brother. The question before us is how do we now act in the face of such evil. Some think it’s hopeless in this age and propose going Galt, Prepper, etc. Others want to fight it by civil disobedience, loading up on guns and waiting for the impending collapse of society as people lose all trust in money and government. Yet still others reiterate truths in hopes that somehow those currently enthralled by Obama’s sweet lies will wake up to the truth and turn back before falling into the abyss. It’s like the War on Drugs … How do we win against the addiction and cure those whose most compelling desire, overriding all reason, logic, and self preservation is to get the next hit. You’re right. We were warned in the Bible and history and in the words you quote. In our arrogance, we thought we could control the beast within us without moral bounds and once again we were wrong. In our lifetime from eugenics and abortion, to free sexual intercourse without consequences, to tolerance of actions and ideologies anathema to our beliefs, to free mind altering drugs, the consequences are becoming clear. What fools we have been. “It’s time to roll up our sleeves and pay the piper.
The West seems to be embracing the political philosophy of well-to-do Communist Jews.
As New York mayor Michael (“the dork”) Bloomberg opined, “choice, gay rights, the environment are the real issues, more important than economics.”
Dr. Sanity discusses the key foundations of leftist dogma
David,
I might point out that the state is decidedly NOT Mamby-Pamby to anyone who finds themselves in the crosshairs for failure to be Politically Correct.
Until the electorate of this country wakes up, the money to run this namby-pandy state will continue to come from the printing presses of the mint. Our country today is being run by inept, irresponsible, corrupt politicians that were elected by the “useful idiots” or appointed by those that were elected. The Secretary of the Treasury is a prime example of how much damage can put upon a country by appointing idiots, and there are more then what we need of this type in our government. Electing another unqualified president is not the answer to our problems.
…corrupt politicians that were elected by the “useful idiots” or appointed by those that were elected.
Complete nonsense. They were elected by people running from social conservatives. Voting for horrifying death by tentacle rape is preferable *for most people* to voting for what they perceive as the statist religious right. If the GOP continues to embrace the religious social conservative bloc, this running away from the GOP will accelerate. People are not running TO the left, they are running AWAY from social conservatism.
You look condescendingly through your nose at the anti-social conservative vote as if this is surprising. Many expressing the same views smugly assume that these voters — compared to themselves as paragons of educated virtue of course — are uneducated morons (i.e. useful idiots as you so warmly put it.)
Solway, the author of this piece, is just as remarkably unaware as the rest of the tone deaf “culture” writers that work for this web site. They are all religious or regard religion as the bedrock of (or at least their version of) the US culture, so anything in the area of religion is OK. They simply can’t see the bigger picture, or if they do, are rejecting what they see. And the bigger picture is that on the left is the tax nanny state and on the right is an even more insane religious nanny state. This is what voters are being offered, and they are voting leftward. Surprise. So… rather than examine what they are being offered and figuring out how to fix it, it’s a lot simpler — and intellectually devoid — to disregard these voters as useful idiots.
You are owned by the left now, and so long as you hold this view you will continue to be owned by the left.
And I say this as someone who hates the left.
And the bigger picture is that on the left is the tax nanny state and on the right is an even more insane religious nanny state.
The REALLY bigger picture is that randomthought (excuse me, randomengineer) is a master of the vapid generalization.
Complete nonsense. They were elected by people running from social conservatives.
Many of the people running things in today’s behemoth weren’t elected by anyone and their policies translate to simple federal power grabs, cf Timmy (“the tax cheat”) Geithner, EPA’s Lisa (“the idiot”) Jackson, Janet (“big sis”) Napolitano, Kathleen (“Obamacare tyrant”) Sebelius and…well, I’ll typer’s cramp.
As usual, your generalization is stupid.
As usual, your generalization is stupid.
You can regard anything you like as stupid, but the left is and was legally elected by the people, and the people are not stupid. You’re missing the fact here that to get said appointees in place the left has to get elected first, which they did. That’s the part I addressed.
For the rest, which I thought was already well understood, see Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy for a descriptor.
Sorry, the people are stupid.
Systematically and intentionally dumbed down over 4 decades of public education.
Entire segments of society who have not a clue as to the foundation and structure of the Republic, people who voted for the idiot-in-chief because he’d give them stuff, because his DNA is one half black, because he happily circumvents federal immigration law.
Useful idiots, just as the original poster said.
You may prefer the euphemism “low information voters”
You may prefer the euphemism “low information voters”
No idea where you stand re climate wars but the alarmist side always makes the argument that the science has spoken, the data are clear, and the only people disputing this are either paid shills or useful idiots of the eeevil oil industry.
This of couse is utter nonsense; they don’t seem able to grasp the idea that people can look at the same data and conclude differently.
I find it rather curious that your argument parallels theirs, although I suspect that you would proudly self-ID as a “denier.” How do you reconcile that?
Off into the climate, that’s quite a segue.
As you attempt to make some kind of odd parallel, some randomengineer generalization.
Since Barack’s ascension, we have 15 million more human beings “on” food stamps, a large increase in those on “disability” (many of whom hardly fit the category but have become adept at working the system) a humongous debt and a guy who wants to spend more and more (Timmy wants to lift the ceiling entirely).
All this from a guy who originally campaigned on DEBT CUTTING (said he didn’t deserve a second term if he didn’t cut the deficit in half) and the necessity of FIXING MEDICARE AND MEDICAID, none of which he ever even mentions today.
Because his base, the useful idiots, are addicted to the free stuff, which keeps him and his ilk in power.
Until collapse, that is.
This guy who hates the limits on his power placed by our founding document will again swear to uphold that document sometime 3rd week of January.
I’m appalled you’re not appalled.
Climate was mentioned because you are using the alarmist’s argument, and their argument is WRONG. And using a crayon this time… so is yours.
The rest of your screed devolves to blaming inferior people.
Don’t be insulted by the polemic approach of the randomengineer. He can’t help it.
@random eng.
You do know that your anti-Christian bigotry shows, no matter how cleverly stated, don’t you? Do you realize that a self-important religion of “reason” is really just self worship?
Voting one’s conscience is not an attempt to set up a theocracy. Your evil “social conservatives” wrote our Constitution, fought and still fight for our liberty, and made this country great. Your kind of Libetarianism sounds like it’s really all about you.
One impetus toward the nanny state has been economic specialization. Self-sufficient people have few reasons to seek support from the state, and they have many reasons to avoid it. Unfortunately, few of us today are self-sufficient farmers. Were food to suddenly disappear from supermarket shelves, most of us would be unable to do much about it. While we may not often acknowledge our interdependence, it is there nonetheless, and it affects the way we think about government.
A second factor favoring the nanny state has been women’s suffrage. Compared with men, women are more inclined to nurture others unconditionally, a trait obviously rooted in their role as mothers. This tendency to nurture without passing judgment makes them natural liberals. Women also tend, on average, to be less confrontational than men and to prefer politically correct “tact” to frank speech. In foreign affairs, they are more likely to favor accommodation over intransigence.
A third factor in the growth of the nanny state has been contraception. By decoupling sex and procreation, it has weakened social sanctions that used to bind men to the women with whom they copulated. The result has been disastrous for women who, despite feminist ideology, retain a powerful need to produce and nurture children and who therefore crave protection for themselves and their offspring. Since men no longer support women as reliably as before, women have turned to the state, and career politicians have responded accordingly.
A fourth factor favoring the nanny state has been mechanization. Besides facilitating the movement of women into the workforce (and therefore into the voting booth), it has reduced the economic importance of traditional male virtues of strength and courage. The result has been the emergence of the “metrosexual” male, whose mindset is relatively more feminine that that of his father and grandfather. Listen to NPR and notice how high-pitched many of the male voices are. Notice, too, how often they exhibit feminine speech patterns, such as softening an assertion by finishing it with a questioning intonation. These external manifestations of feminization reflect an internal mindset that has consequences in the formation of popular opinion.
I’d add a fifth factor to this as well: the inexorable redefinition as to what the meaning of terms are such as “disabled,” “needy,” “deserving.” They have been perverted all out of true, such that with the right advocate, I could get you a disability and “special status” for damned near anything.
I do believe that the next time some needy 20-something tells me “I have issues with authority,” as if it’s some actual disabling condition, I shall punch them out.
My neck got sore as I nodded my head constantly while reading your post.
I agree with you altogether—and I’m a woman! RSP, thank you x 4 and thanks x 1 to Allston.
Considering that so many of my sisters are more than willing to give their support to charlatans who are bad not only for them, but for the prospects of any children to whom they might give birth, I believe the term “the weaker sex” is altogether apt.
Use your HEADS, ladies!
I’m glad to see that you have absorbed some of the points in my posts over the years!
Most of these things are “natural” phenomena, as modern society evolves, which is not to say that they don’t have their down-sides; what doesn’t? One can still carve out plenty of individualism within this larger society, but you can’t force others to be the kinds of individuals you think that they should be, and you also should not kid yourself that you are not dependent on the larger culture for almost all of your necessities, comforts, and luxuries. American society is self-correcting as various things ebb and flow, but generally the guvment at local, state, and national levels always gets bigger. Private enterprise via advertising convinces us that we need things and hundreds of thousands, probably millions of other people convince us that we need a medicine, a program for our kids, or a regulation to protect us from the guvment. n the good old days, people had the decency to die early and if they didn’t, one hoped they had a family to take care of them. If not, the town paid for their support in a variety of ways from reimbursing those who provided their food, firewood, doctors’s visits, to poor farms, to private providers and so on. The huge problem here is not as much values, as demographics. A chunk of the older population has money squirreled away that should get back into the economy and another chunk of them “need” all sorts of services and treatments to squeeze out another day or decade of life. We must solve the equation for X, Y, and Z.
Being new to this website, I’m unfamiliar with your past postings. I do sense, however, that I’m less comfortable with current trends than you are.
Regarding a few of your remarks:
I don’t waste time trying to force others to be as I would prefer them. I’ve heard, however, that university administrators often do just that when they enforce speech codes and control the sorts of speakers that are allowed on campus. Are complaints concerning this justified? (That’s not a rhetorical question, by the way. It’s been years since I’ve sat in a classroom, so I have no recent experience there. I’ve heard plenty about it, though. Most of the stories involve campuses that are supposedly secular and therefore not advertised as being tied to any particular religious faith or political stance. The pressures there seem to be overwhelmingly in a so-called “liberal” direction. Is this anything we should be concerned about?)
As far as “millions of other people” convincing us that we need a “regulation to protect us from the government”, I’m not sure what you mean. Are you referring to our constitution? I myself share the Founders’ suspicion of government, and I believe our constitution defends more than just the wealth of rich white men. It concerns me that cynics who rightly distrust private individuals and corporations seem to have considerably less fear of government, as though our having a say in the government’s composition somehow makes it less dangerous. I believe the best defense against abuse is dispersion of power, both in commerce (think of “anti-trust” legislation) and government (think of separation of powers and a less flexible reading of the constitution). What do you think?
Concerning those old folks who have “money squirreled away that should get back into the economy”, we used to call those people “savers”, and their behavior was considered prudent rather than selfish. Furthermore, their money did find its way back into the economy, as investment in business. Today, however, I have actually heard it argued that these people should be paid back in inflated dollars, and that it is perfectly fine to do so because, after all, these folks were investors who knew they were taking a risk by buying government bonds. I ask you, Dwight, can any society thrive when views like these prevail? If so, for how long?
My lines about people convincing us were ambiguously written. Clearer writing would have stated that there are millions telling us why we need more government to protect us from the latest danger, done with the same zeal commerce uses to sell us the newest thing. Anyway, welcome aboard. Although we will often disagree, I’m sure, your critique here seems to acknowledge a bit more of current Reality, the given, in which we now work and play, than some of the Jeremiahs around these parts.
David – Your citation of Kierkegaard is absolutely on point. Did you notice the Kant quote appended to the Wikipedia entry for Kierkegaard? Here it is:
“Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a proportion of men, long after nature has released them from alien guidance (natura-liter maiorennes), nonetheless gladly remain in lifelong immaturity, and why it is so easy for others to establish themselves as their guardians. It is so easy to be immature. If I have a book to serve as my understanding, a pastor to serve as my conscience, a physician to determine my diet for me, and so on, I need not exert myself at all. I need not think, if only I can pay: others will readily undertake the irksome work for me. The guardians who have so benevolently taken over the supervision of men have carefully seen to it that the far greatest part of them (including the entire fair sex) regard taking the step to maturity as very dangerous, not to mention difficult. Having first made their domestic livestock dumb, and having carefully made sure that these docile creatures will not take a single step without the go-cart to which they are harnessed, these guardians then show them the danger that threatens them, should they attempt to walk alone. Now this danger is not actually so great, for after falling a few times they would in the end certainly learn to walk; but an example of this kind makes men timid and usually frightens them out of all further attempts.”
And apparently this was in 1784.
The Founders had the unique insight that people who weren’t aristocrats were fully worthy of directing their own lives, and risked their lives to prove it.
Since that moment, the aristocrats and wannabe aristocrats have been hell-bent on dispoving it.
They couldn’t, since humanity prospered more in the subsequent 200 years than it had in the prior hundred thousand.
So they changed the game.
And now we have Obama.
Ants of the world united in mediocrity and serfdom!!!
agreed.
Here’s a thoroughly politically incorrect thought. Perhaps the recent rise of radical Islamic fundamentalism is God’s way to make us wake up to the moral threat we face from within. If those who hate us are willing to die for their beliefs, what are we willing to die for? Or will we go quietly like timid sheep following the orders of a tyrannical political elite determined to create a utopia of their choosing even if they have to kill everyone who yearns for freedom or believes that God’s laws override laws made by men. If Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others couldn’t do it despite the deaths of hundreds of millions of innocents, how many more will have to be killed in this latest utopian attempt? I for one am beginning to understand what the German people went through under Hitler. If the highest allegiance one has is to the State, and that State orders you to kill others by action or neglect because someone says they are a threat although you personally don’t see it, what do you do? Who today are the “evil jews” who must be relieved of their ill gotten wealth, who must be ridiculed, denied access to food, health care, etc., and eventually put to death for the greater good of the society? Again, I ask, of myself too, what are we willing to fight and die for? Remember, Hitler also started by offering the people relief from economic difficulties through wealth redistribution and finding scapegoats, and look where it all ended.
Who today are the “evil jews” who must be relieved of their ill gotten wealth, who must be ridiculed, denied access to food, health care, etc., and eventually put to death for the greater good of the society?
To George Bernard Shaw, it was the hoi polloi who needed to be exterminated. Benignly, of course, after all he was an intellectual !
To Margaret Sanger, it was negro babies.
To Billy Ayers in his heyday, it was “the bourgeoisie”, maybe as many as 25 million individuals according to one of his acolytes.
To Obamacare adviser Dr. Zeke Emanuel, it’s the under age 15 and the over about age 60 who should not get the prime medical attention, unproductive and all that.
To Obama’s science guy, John Holdren, it’s just warm bodies in general.
And, of course, it’s still the “evil Jews”.
What are you talking about? Shaw spent all his life fighting for the common man.
Stan, that may have been his point. Under our Constitution, we are all supposed to be uncommon men because we are granted the authority to control our own lives as long as we allow the other uncommon people the opportunity to do the same. The idea was to put so called common men into the position of control over their Government. “Common men” is a construct of government and collectivism, and was not a result of uncommon men exerting control over that government. Being subservient to the Government is what renders men to be commoners.
If your life does not benefit us…
“I appeal to the chemists to discover a humane gas that will kill instantly and painlessly. Deadly by all means. But humane, not cruel.”
~GB Shaw, February 1934
Unfortunately, most people never wake up to the dangers around them until the dying starts. I would like to think that the standard American, once made aware of the evils in this new political order in that way, will choose to fight back. I would like to think that our society is different enough from Germany society that we won’t allow millions to be slaughtered in the name of “unfairness”. I would like to think that the people running the country now have such a weak grasp of the American spirit, and such an arrogant disregard for the fundamentals of human nature, that they can’t successfully destroy these things in us.
But again, I doubt the average American will realize what’s going on until the book burnings and lynchings begin.
Seems hopeless. Except that let’s say the whole edifice, which is built on air, collapses? The federal government defaults, the dollar loses its reserve currency status, the nation is instantly impoverished. Reset time. Even should the marxists/statists/socialists retain power in what will no longer be a nanny or namby pamby state but more likely a warden state, will they be able to reinflate? Will the shellshocked citizenry allow it? Or will such an attempt to renew the march to utopia be met with revolt in all the forms revolt can take? I think the latter. Which is why I am praying for economic collapse, with full knowledge of the suffering it will bring.
Summer’s over. It’s Fall–the leaves are falling from the trees. The warm sunshine is harder to come by. Winter is coming, when it will be cold and dark…dead and hibernating creatures all around. It’s the necessary cycle in order for us to have the renewal of Spring. Our culture is in the Fall of its existence, and only a harsh winter…unavoidable on our current trajectory…will bring about better days.
“…growth of the nanny state and its unremitting assault on the dignity and independence of the responsible individual citizen.”
Yes, the evolution of the individual American citizen has collectively changed the majority landscape of America. How is it that some have come to place the evolutionary changes upon a particular political party and or the government? Political parties are representative of people as is the government representative of the people. When a majority evolves in support of something, then so shall it be, if constitutional, according to our constitution
Of real concern during this particular time in our political and social history is the overwhelming issue of hypocrisy.
On the political side, there isn’t a citizen who does not take and in most cases would demand 99.9% of all the economic benefits government hands out. Most are so accustomed to these benefits they don’t remember (if they ever knew) where they come from. . Everybody, state and community wants to cut somebody else’s government handouts off but for certain, not their own.
On the social side, it is a battle between particular religious interpretations and doctrines with the constitution. One side fights for established constitutional individual freedoms over that of any religion much less a, particular brand of religious doctrines and beliefs. The other side seemingly believes that the constitution was written to protect individual freedoms ‘within’ a particular religious brand of doctrine and belief.
Evolution nearly always wins out as it is driven by the people and in America, protected by the constitution. Can the evolution of a people have the consequences of social and political collapse? Indeed it can! However, the destiny of America is in the hands of the people, by a majority representation and constitutionally protected.
As for finger pointing blame, point no further than ‘we the people’ and the churches and not the government. So, who will win? The majority or the minority?
Surely you jest Zeke. Asserting that religion has more to do with the creation of the namby-pamby state than government is the logical equivalent of inmates running the asylum.
Okay! Then kindly list a church for whom has not been a supporter or yeilded to the social transformation of America over the last nearly 100 years and more intensely since the 60s. Would Jesus condemn each of these churches and their issues of social justice and equality? Is social justice and equality void from the constitution founded by religious men?
Seems to me that the ‘social’ conservative movement inside the GOP is really between the churches and the constitution! The constitution and the government only stand by the will of the majority of people. Thus far, it seems the evaqngelical tea party “conservative’ movement lacks a majority of even the mainstream GOP much less the entire nation — which means that the overwhelming majority are choosing to stand with the constitution.
The economic problems facing the government will have to be worked out by a compromise not some minority group demanding that only they and their solutions be granted supreme authority ignoring the constitution except for those parts they selfservingly re-interpret to their advantage at the moment.
Last I looked Freedom of Religion was one of those Constitutional protections we considered, and many of us still consider, essential to true liberty. And, yes, that does include to live and argue for what we consider, in good conscience, to be right. Any religious man who’s conscience and actions- including his political actions, are not guided by his sincerely held beliefs is not living his faith.
It is not the peoples’ and the churches’ actions that have brought us to this mess, it is the peoples’ and churches inaction and failure to stay informed that did so. The Left’s “long march through the institutions” could not have been so successful without the weakening of faith during the good times of the late 50′s and 60′s, and the “sexual revolution” of the 70′s. In the end, most of these anti-religious types posting here abandoned religion, not because of a lack of belief, but because thay couldn’t stand the churches telling them their fun and games were wrong. Can’t worry about that if you reject God altogether, can you?
And now those who rejected religion because they didn’t want to believe in such a thing as “wrong”, much less “sin”, are attacking the churches and the faithful because we, all of us, lost an election? Talk about a bunch of twits!
oh c’mon Zeke, the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) party was, 1) primarily about the economy and the same leftist abuses you don’t like; 2) not religious; and 3) formed of good, decent citizens who were paying attention.
The religious flap in this election was triggered by Sebelius’ order long after the TEA Party was active, possibly so various bozo’s would stop paying attention to the Constitutional issues. It worked, too, look at you.
Salvation Army Seeing Record Number Of Families In Need December 7, 2012
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/12/07/salvation-army-seeing-record-number-of-families-in-need/
“in locus parentis”
Actually, I believe it’s “in loco parentis”. (And what was your point?)
You’re right, A, a silly slip. I know better but that doesn’t prevent me from being mortified.
I am at a loss on what to do next. I tell my kids they should have an easier time with all the dimwits and losers on the take but if success means you support dozens of people and in return are maligned as evil and greedy and made a target then maybe it is easier to just blend in with the masses.
Does anybody have any ideas how to get our society out of this awful pattern of malignant thinking?
In the last 4 years we have gone from being the largest trading partner of more than 120 nations to just 75 nations. China has gone from being the largest trading partner of just 75 nations 4 years ago to more than 120 nations today. We are not on the decline but well down the hockey stick. The pain was engineered to kick in later….
You are by no means the only one, Professor, who is at a loss. Having said that, certainly one first step is to demand that our leaders (sic) in Washington tell their beloved citizens that their current government costs more money than we have. There is now no real link between the cost of government and what we the citizens pay for that government. Until that link is re-established, ‘something for nothing’ will continue to be an attractive option. It will be so attractive that elections will be decided on that basis.
Just last night my wife and I streamed, ‘Merry Christmas, Charlie Brown’ and there is a scene for me which is VERY foreboding of our economic/ debt and entitlement malaise.
Charlie Brown’s sister ‘Sally’ asks Charlie to write her Dear Santa letter for her.
Paraphrasing, Sally says if Santa’s unable to provide said-gifts then, ‘Money is okay. Preferably in 10′s, 20′s’.
Charlie Brown walks away in frustration by his sister’s comment whereas Sally is seen talking to herselfleaves in disgust and she says aloud, ‘All I want is what’s coming to me. All I want is my fair share’.
CREEEPY.. all the more so considering it was made in 1965, the same year Medicare, the biggest entitlement albatross around our necks came to fruition!
I don’t know the late-Charles Schulz’s political leanings but perhaps he was making a playful jab at Illiberal’s then or the context of Sally’s verbiage is looked at differently than was mentioned at that time.
Disregard the ‘leaves in disgust’ accidentally appended to my previous comment. I didn’t edit my thought as well as I’d thought. Thanks!
is this, a choice
between preserving
the autonomy
of ourselves as individuals
or surrendering
to the total opposite
and being slaves
Alexis de Tocqueville was right about us. We can’t hold this mess together, now that the masses have discovered that they can vote for government that will steal from the wealthy minority and give some of the loot to them. After there is nothing left to steal, the masses will end up sleeping in the streets. There can be no other result.