Tag Archives: right wing

Bigoted, Racist, No-Good, Evil Conservatives and the Leftists Who Need Them

All those who dabble in the dark arts of conservatism are called bigots, racists, sexists, homophobes or just plain evil in the course of exchanging pleasantries with the left. So why not just own it?

Fine, I’m a bigot, a racist, a sexist and a homophobe, according to a warped left-wing worldview that casts all those who oppose government redistribution as oppressors of blacks, immigrants, gays and women.

Obviously, any wingnut’s confession of guilt for the litany of sins charged by his fork-tongued adversaries is tongue-in-cheek. The question is: do progressives who project such a nefarious psyche onto their ideological opponents really believe the nonsense they’re spouting? In other words, are lefties getting high on their own supply?

There are two kinds of people who believe the tripe that conservatives are racist misogynistic knuckle-draggers: the uncritical soft left, who suckle at the sour teats of MSNBC and CBS News, Huffington Post or Yahoo News; and the Marxist, Castroite left, whose ideological framework necessarily casts their opponents in the mold of bigots, racists and women-oppressors.

But let’s leave aside the flotsam and jetsam who float idly on the neomarxist cultural tide and concentrate on the ideological leadership. Why do the Ivy league set say the right is full of closet Klan members aching for a return to the ‘good old days’ when a fella could whimsically rape and abuse women in public, force them to carry babies to term, and then burn any as witches who so much think about asking for child support?

The left needs the right. In a zero-sum world where the poor are necessarily impoverished by the rich, the minority are necessarily oppressed by the majority, and physically weaker women are the prey of physically stronger men, then there is no other explanation for someone opposing the left’s equalization of life’s injustice than being prejudiced.

That’s why if you oppose Barack Obama’s quixotic brand of value redistribution, then you must be a heartless racist! That’s why if you think the Lily Ledbetter act is a condescending piece of legislation that neglects the market’s punishment of idiots who don’t recompense for value because of anti-vagina bias, then you sir, are a mysogynist. And that’s why if you believe that immigrants must at least pay tributary acknowledgment of our rule of law and our system of government, then you must be a xenophobe.

In order to cast themselves as heroes of their own passion play righting the wrongs of cosmic injustice, progressives need villains. It’s not enough to yell, Lieutenant-Danlike, in front of an ungodly hurricane, “Come and get me, you son of a bitch!” — one has to cast other human beings as somehow responsible for the gargantuan storm.

Never mind that any hurricane possesses the combined force of several million nuclear bombs; in order to stop these catastrophic acts of Nature, people just need to stop breathing. It’s the progressive version of “original sin,” born of a post-religious worldview that takes all the worst aspects of Christianic faith and throws in the non-redeeming value of eschewing God.

But underlying this point-of-view is the true irony: it casts all members of a given class of people (sound familiar?) as inherently needing of progressives’ help. Women truly are needing of all sorts of government protections; lest the marketplace would have them all in sweatshops. Blacks need housing projects or even better, redlining legislation; or else greedy bankers would win out (by not making money on mortgages, apparently). If humans are allowed to go about their business making stuff without progressives putting a halt to it, the planet will be poisoned and all life on earth will end as we know it.

Not to mention that according to taxpayer-funded NPR, if you plan on voting for the mildly pro-market Romney/Ryan, then just put your check on the “white supremacist ticket“…

The conservative’s answer to the left on matters of economic justice is that consumers, laborers and businesses are held accountable for their decisions every day, as voted on in dollars. People don’t need biased, self-interested progressives rigging the system for themselves or for crony corporations or for unions. Right-wingers would rather have the maximum amount of economic power in their own hands; and no, they don’t believe working for or buying products from corporations is an act of exploitation. On the other side of the “corporate exploitation” equation are the consumers that derive benefit from their goods and services.

The progressive worldview is a paternalistic breed of racism and sexism that projects its biases onto those who oppose them on principled grounds. Conservatives don’t believe in ever-expansive, redistributive government, period. They don’t think people need it, in general, because there is enough equality in society among the great majority that if the marketplace is unleashed, people will have more than enough opportunities to triumph over adversity, making themselves and their country better in the process.

The conservative, therefore, is decidedly unbiased. Individuals can make it if the government’s big black boots of taxation, regulation, and redistribution are taken off their throats. Welfare and unemployment suppress human development; they represent the opposite of the kind of self-empowerment conservatives want to see for all citizens.

The conservative worldview is one where people are potential winners and not all tragedies in life can be prevented, only tempered through personally given charity and love; lest we empower a government that will cause more systematic and widespread tragedy through tyranny.

Why the Tea Party is Centrist & Leftists are Extremists

The popular image of the tea party spread by opinion-molders is that it is a right-wing extremist movement within the Republican party. Actually, it is a coalition of American conservatives supportive of Constitutionally limited government near the center of two extremes: anarchy and totalitarianism. Unbeknownst to those who swim in the heady currents of cultural marxism, American leftists  are the extremists, since there is no ideological barrier to totalitarianism in their mindset.

“Right-winger” is a slur reflexively hurled by socialists and progressives at any party, movement, faction, or individual that opposes the left-wing agenda. The smear tactic is intended to confuse those who support the traditionally American tenets of liberty, limited government, and individual rights with European fascists and ultra-nationalists.

The terms “right-wing” and “left-wing” are derived from the French Revolution; nationalists who supported the Ancien Regime (monarchy, or “Old Regime”), the church, and the aristocracy sat in the right-wing of the French assembly, while radical democrats, whose egalitarian ideals implied a leveling of institutional, traditional, political, and economic barriers to absolute freedom sat in the “left-wing.”

In European history, those who supported the maintenance of the monarchical and aristocratic  status quo were conservatives. These conservatives’ preferences for maintaining the spoils of privilege must still be distinguished from the philosophy of Edmund Burke, who was a proponent of incremental reform.

Both kinds of European conservatives, statist and Burkean, must be distinguished still from American conservatives, whose adherence to tradition springs from a deep-seated belief in the truth of the country’s founding principles, which are a reflection of the inherently non-conservative Enlightenment.

It is the appreciation of conflicting interests in a free society that led to the innovations of the Constitution; divided powers and checks and balances were designed to safeguard people against abuses by either an absolutist ruler, or a tyrannical majority seeking to despoil its prey of property, life, or freedom. The requirement of legislation by majority, and the stipulation that changing the Constitution demands a super-majority, were but two safeguards. One of the most important barriers to oppression is the Bill of Rights, which are individual rights that must not be violated by tyrants of any variety.

The numerous precautions against the concentration of power in the United States, combined with clear principles for the administration of the republic, provided America with stable and predictable rules that gave men the psychological security to feel safeguarded from both government tyranny and the predatory behavior of hostile interests. This arrangement established a framework for a vibrant “civil society,” and the prosperous economic order of free market capitalism. These “spontaneous orders” are not conservative in nature, but allow for “progress” in specifically designated terms, such as technological improvements, or enhancement of human understanding.

These spontaneous orders are also not overly chaotic in nature, as “progressives” tend to misapprehend out of their inner craving to control other human beings. Men and women by their very nature are self-interested, though with flashes of altruistic behavior. Systematically coerced altruism, on the other hand, is unsustainable because it is a misunderstanding of human nature, and therefore not conducive to political order, long-term human happiness, or the prosperity of human beings. In other words, altruism is not a sound animating principle for government.

Those who hold that the tea party movement is “extremist” have the false conception that virtuous men can be placed in government and they can lead a “compassionate “government that will give people everything their hearts’ desire. But they fail miserably to account for the historical track record of consolidated governmental authority, which is always justified by appeal to lofty sentiments. The American government must inevitably disappoint and frustrate progressives, because it is designed to spur men to manage themselves and become productive members of society.

Progressives who believe that free market capitalism is naturally chaotic or heartless do not appreciate that it is in reality ordered by the drive of men to better their own lives. This is not the same as anarchy: the wants and desires of men are naturally limited by economic scarcity as reflected in a pricing system. The wages of labor, just as the prices of goods and services, are also set by the market. Those who develop sought-after skills, prosper; those who do not, are less prosperous. Thus American government is designed for those who value liberty and opportunity over the illusion of security provided by a powerful government. The drive for a paternalistic form of security undermines the political and economic order of safe-guarded liberty, on which only a long-term form of security, from tyranny and from predatory interests, is conceivably possible.

Tea party members do not desire to rule their political opposition or otherwise impose their will on their fellow citizens. Instead, they want to restore the nation to its Constitutional foundations, establish fiscal responsibility in government, re-establish the free market economic principles that allowed the majority of the nation to prosper, and renew the virtue in individuals to see on another as ends in themselves, and not as means to some political end.

Ultimately, the Constitution, the embodiment of those founding principles that tea party movement adherers cherish most, is specifically designed to protect American citizens from political threats arising from both the right and the left. Leftists, on the other hand, are for complete state control of economy, society, and the government, making them the true extremists.

Stupidity With A Side of Nazi Please

The Nazi allegations are floating around again.  Like racism, being labeled a Nazi by anyone in the political spectrum, left and right, is not only irresponsible, but grossly sophomoric behavior that is akin to sixth grade antics in the lunchroom.  To put it simply, there is no vast national socialist plot to takeover the country.  We have a constitution that prevents the rapid centralization of power that would fit the governing model of a national socialist government.  Yes, Barack Obama and George Bush are both at fault for expanding the six and scope of government to unacceptable levels, but that doesn’t make them Nazis.

While I have great respect for Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist, I found his remarks about Sen. Chuck Schumer and Sen Casey’s tax law that would mandate that wealthy people prove they didn’t renounce their citizenship for tax reasons.  This comes in light of  Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin’s renunciation of U.S. citizenship before the social media site went public last Friday.  According to Bernie Becker and Erik Wasson of The Hill,

“the targeting people that turn in their passports reminded him of regimes that had driven people out of the country, only to confiscate their wealth at the door.  I think Schumer can probably find the legislation to do this. It existed in Germany in the 1930s and Rhodesia in the ’70s and in South Africa as well, said Norquist. “He probably just plagiarized it and translated it from the original German.” The Nazis infamously implemented a departure tax on Jews who tried to flee Germany before World War II.”

One could have argued that there are bigger issues at hand with the economy and our entitlement structure than focusing on whether a few wealthy Americans abandon their citizenship in the future. Instead of Nazi references, Grover could have made an eloquent attack on this law by discussing the gross overreach of congressional power, the reasons why we should expand our 72,536 page tax code, and how will this new law make collecting revenue more efficient.  I’m guessing the cost to collect the tax from would-be ex-patriots would outweigh the benefits.

On the left, we have left-wing blowhard Stephanie Miller comparing Mitt Romney to Hitler due to his past “bullying” episode and the inability for liberals to understand or stomach the amoral disposition of capitalism.  On an equally idiotic footing, she also compared GOP policies as promoting”state sponsored rape” against women.  Newsbusters broke a story surrounding Michelle Goldberg, contributor to Newsweek/Daily Beast, who penned a piece even comparing Ann Romney to Hitler and Stalin.

The source of the controversy centered on a piece Ann Romney wrote for USA Today for Mother’s Day:

Cherish your mothers. The ones who wiped your tears, who were at every ball game or ballet recital. The ones who believed in you, even when nobody else did, even when maybe you didn’t believe in yourself. Women wear many hats in their lives.

Daughter, sister, student, breadwinner. But no matter where we are or what we’re doing, one hat that moms never take off is the crown of motherhood.

There is no crown more glorious.

I guess motherhood really got the fascists going, but I think it’s really hedged on liberals engaging in their usual stupidity.  Goldberg responded by saying that “I found that phrase ‘the crown of motherhood’ really kind of creepy, not just because of its, like, somewhat you know, I mean, it’s kind of usually really authoritarian societies that give out like The Cross of Motherhood, that give awards for big families. You know, Stalin did it, Hitler did it.”  Yep, where did I leave my steel-toed boots again, I’m ready to march.

The truth of the matter is that Nazism is a rather hybrid of various political leanings.  It’s not exclusively right or left wing.   Both fascists and communists espoused totalitarian governing styles, with an emphasis on organized labor, and the view of capitalism as a failed ideology.  The only exception to the rule is that communism advocated a classless, international proletariate controlling the goods and means of production, while fascists espoused celebrating the triumph of their respective nation.  In other words, they decided to flip off the fraternity notion and go their own way celebrating their own racial or ethnic superiority.  Not an overly brotherly disposition.  In all, since Nazism is a political philosophy with more that 50 shades of grey, I propose we have a indefinite moratorium on using this label to smear or attack political opponents, unless they actually espouse a national socialist platform, which will never happen.  It’s ignorant, stupid, and lacks sophistication to just call one’s opponent a “Nazi.”  We’re conservatives with the truth, facts, and numbers on our side.  Do we really need to engage in this nonsensical behavior?  As for the left, I would say the same thing, but being that the world is your oyster; it’s bound to slip through the cracks of your shamefully spineless philosophy.