Pajamas Media

132 Comments

1. Benson:

Wonderful! Finally someone has articulated here not just another conservative whine about Obama and his apparatchiki, but a statement of the fundamental ethics that underlie proper governance.

To this I would add only one point: society does not exist. It is an abstraction, like the set of all green vegetables or odd numbers. It cannot have rights because it has no reality. Only individuals have rights. The common weal is advanced only when laws and customs protect the individual and give him maximum control over his life.

I don’t think we need Rand, either, because her views are what I call “philosophy lite,” but most of her conclusions are instructive. IMHO.

Kudos to Yates for having given us a trenchant and exportable manifesto!

May 11, 2009 - 2:06 am 2. BPT (Australia):

Great point: “This emergency procedure won’t work because the administration is in a no-win situation.” I agree. Obama is in trouble. Cheer up Republicans!

May 11, 2009 - 2:07 am 3. mpgrunt787:

I wish that you were right, but the trademark of any collectivist is the inability to learn from their mistakes/history. It is much more likely that they will just look to scapegoat corporations, the military industrial complex, or red necks for being soo greedy/murderous/stooopid.

May 11, 2009 - 2:11 am 4. Shef Rogers:

I remember being a 13-year old nerd, all excited by my first encounter with Ayn Rand. Luckily, I didn’t write down my breathless, pubescent take on modern intellectual history as Tristan has done here. There are so many fundamental misreadings of history here that it’s impossible even to make a start. Tristan, stick to fantasy novels.

May 11, 2009 - 2:12 am 5. David Thomson:

“The intellectual foundation that supports their agenda is collapsing in full view of the world.”

I am nowhere this optimistic. The author’s whole premise seems to revolve around the belief that the majority of people can think and follow a logical argument. Moreover, he conveniently forgets that a very secular society is generally a passive one preferring to believe that merely taxing the rich a few dollars more can fund rampant government spending. We must also never forget that the majority of Obama’s supporters are marginally to functionally illiterate. They may not even be able to read the sports pages of their local newspaper. Reading an article like this one is way beyond their pathetic ability. We may represent the minority—and therefore should not take anything for granted. The odds might currently even be slightly against us.

May 11, 2009 - 2:57 am 6. Rick:

Wishful thinking, I am afraid. Never underestimate the stupidity of the average American. As long as he /she can watch sports and “reality” TV, he/she will willingly swallow all the s##t the media and the oblammo group will throw out there.

May 11, 2009 - 3:08 am 7. Ed Wallis:

I find it splendid that PJM has this and Hanson’s “Do the Democrats Have Amnesia?” articles – shall we say – side by side.

I would like to be as optimistic as the author here, but…

…my only question to T. Yates would be: Just how would you propose to most effectively communicate this/your message to most Americans?

May 11, 2009 - 3:17 am 8. Barb:

Excellent article, thank you! I just finished reading Atlas Shrugged for the second time. I hope and pray that you are correct about us watching collectivism’s last gasp.

May 11, 2009 - 3:18 am 9. David Thomson:

Tristan Yates’ well-meaning article is actually a very destructive one. I am utterly convinced that far too many conservatives have been complacent because they thought their rational arguments would easily carry the day. They wrongly concluded that that the masses would readily perceive the wisdom of their ideas. Alas, nothing could be further from the truth. Most Americans are so intellectually shallow that they are lucky to be able to read an op-ed piece. It is foolish to think otherwise. They are easily conned by a charismatic huckster like Obama who essentially promises something for nothing.

May 11, 2009 - 3:29 am 10. Stephen:

It does not require intellectual understanding of conservative or progressive principles to rise up against progressivism when the system collapses onto itself. Even the unwashed understand limited services and a lack of jobs. When the NBA and NASCAR cut back, all hell will break loose.

May 11, 2009 - 3:37 am 11. Roger Godby:

I hope the author is right, but many people it seems deal with government intrusion as, “How much will it cost? Here’s the check, now leave me alone.” As European personal tax rates suggest, Americans are probably going to continue tolerating more abuse. However, the threshhold for revolt at the ballot box is probably lower in the US than Europe.

Will a viable Third Party appear, like Perot? The Libertarians are always out there, as are other smaller parties, like the new Modern Whigs. Could political consolidation occur bringing fiscal conservatives and social liberals close enough to pull off electoral wins?

May 11, 2009 - 3:37 am 12. Vaughn:

#6, Rick,
You are dead on about the American public, plus the fact that we have lost the battle in the schools. Each new classroom is full of sponges soaking up the Leftist garbage.

May 11, 2009 - 3:51 am 13. Dave:

If the world were fully capable of intellectual assessment, the author would of course be right. But one of the bastions of benevolent dictatorship is the innate stupidity of the masses, never more aptly demonstrated than here and now, with Obama love.

I truly do believe that millions of people will deliberately, knowingly wreck their own lifestyle levels as long as they know that rich people’s lifestyles are taking an even bigger hit. They’ll do it because Obama asks it of them, and because ‘blasting the rich’ is so emotionally satisfying.

we live in a selfish and sick country, but not for the reasons the left will tell you.

May 11, 2009 - 3:58 am 14. JHM dba 'R. W. Liebestod':

What on earth does Mizz Isolde see in this guy?

Happy days.

May 11, 2009 - 3:59 am 15. Ed Wallis:

Thanks, “Shef” #4, for showing everyone here what a collectivist “education” produces.

I hear your mommy calling for you…time to bring your rent-a-trike back to the mall office. Scoot off, now!

May 11, 2009 - 4:16 am 16. eon:

While it is true that the collectivists (such as The One) have near-absolute control of the means of information dissemination, and are getting very close to a similar level of control of our economy, this is in fact not an advantage for them, but a danger.

The problem with being in total control is that, when things still don’t improve, you run out of scapegoats. At some point, it dawns on everyone else that since you are in total control, everything that is going wrong is a direct consequence of your policies, your decisions, and your worldview. You buy your privilege of wielding absolute power at the price of absolute responsibility for the consequences of your actions.

I’m pretty sure that The One does not understand this. But then, for a supposedly highly educated man, he seems to actually understand very little, being more wrapped up in the theories he has mistaken for reality most of his life.

But sooner or later, he will be forced to confront the illogicality of his beliefs, and actions, much as his “friends”, Hugo Chavez’ and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad are having to do in their own countries.

I predict his awakening will be as rude as theirs. And that he will fail to cope with same even more egregiously than they are now.

clear ether

eon

May 11, 2009 - 4:26 am 17. Boris:

Since just about every prediction on the Jammies is wrong, this article reassures me that Progressivism is thriving and will continue thriving for the foreseeable future. Thanks!

May 11, 2009 - 4:54 am 18. mishu:

I’m getting quite sick of these snarky straw man arguments from the sophomoric left lately such as comments #1 and #4. Just because I don’t want to be beholden to the government for my medical services doesn’t mean I want to have all the traffic lights ripped down.

May 11, 2009 - 4:57 am 19. RandyChandler:

You may be right, Tristan, but I have little confidence in the Republican Party and am very likely to vote Libertarian if a more viable third party doesn’t rise up out of necessity–I think it just might. I see the Republican and Democrat parties as two sides of the same worn-out coin.

Also, I don’t see the Obamacrat Progressives giving up their hold on the levers of power without a nasty fight. When the economy starts tearing the nation apart and the riots start, then they will have the excuse for martial law and extreme government oppression. I fear that we may be in for a real civil war during the next three or four years.

For the first time in my long life, I feel that the future of America is in doubt. The constitutional foundations are cracking because extremist demands have been piled upon them and because subversive elements have undermined them and eaten away at them like hungry termites.

May 11, 2009 - 5:04 am 20. TennesseeVolunteer:

Eon, you have it right about the 1.
Every job he has had was financed by grants or taxpayer assistance. He is highly educated in liberal theory at two of the best institutions that train liberals; Columbia and Harvard.
All of his policies are going to run into a 100 MPG ‘reality’ train coming right at him. It will be us poor small business people and workers of america who will have to pull us out of it when the smoke clears.
Unfortunately, the carnage is going to be sizable.

May 11, 2009 - 5:09 am 21. Bruce:

Using history as a guide, it seems clear to me that the failures of collectivists are never followed by consequences to THEM but to the PUBLIC. When the policies begin to fail, they simply put a gun to the public’s head and force even graver policies on them. Unionism led to Socialism led to Fascism led to Apocalypse.
No one ever said, “Oops! Sorry. Let’s rethink it.”
Nobody. Ever.

May 11, 2009 - 5:27 am 22. davidingeorgia:

it’s not progressivism (or socialism), Tristan, it’s *fascism* couched in the terminology of and marketed as progressivism (with a lot of populist rhetoric thrown in for free)…I’m afraid fascism has a good bit more staying power than this ridiculously hopeful article suggests.

May 11, 2009 - 5:30 am 23. Mike2:

19. RandyChandler:

You are exactly right about both major parties being 2 sides of the same coin and I fear you are right about the rest as well. Good post.

May 11, 2009 - 5:40 am 24. Political Observer:

I would have to agree with David Thompson. Articles such are mere wishful thinking that the collectivist agenda will implode. But that won’t happen until there is a credible alternative to the collectivist state. Unfortunately the Republicans are not that alternative. They have been willing participants in the collectivist state under the misguided viewpoint that expanding the welfare/nanny state would somehow keep them in power. The creation and expansion of the federal government has been on a steady growth path since Herbert Hoover. The only difference between Republican and Democrats has been what part of the federal government expands quicker.

Until we have a credible voice that articulates the case for a massive reduction in scope of the federal government (along the lines as originally conceived by the Founding Fathers) and a plan to use the savings to pay down the oppresive federal debt, we will continue to live with the collectivist state regardless of whether it is run by the Democrats or the Republicans.

While the voices of the citizens is becoming louder around the need to stop the governmental madness – I still don’t believe that it is loud enough to roll back the mistakes of the past 70 years.

May 11, 2009 - 5:48 am 25. mr. burns:

Read Von Mises . Socialism/collectivism fails because without individual choice there are no prices. Without prices there is no profitable economic activity . Without profits the standard of living declines. All this is coming to the USA . The lesson that there is no free lunch and you cannot consume what has not produced is about to be learned by even the most obtuse.

May 11, 2009 - 6:22 am 26. Derek:

This is just another case of “who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes.”

You can see it even in the comments. No one is even willing to acknowledge the idea that some doomsday future won’t come to pass. You might as well be in 1934 saying social security won’t work, 1960’s saying medicare won’t work… now it’s 2009 and the surety is placed in americans rejecting universal healthcare. If you still haven’t beaten the new deal, how the hell do you expect to beat obamanomics?

May 11, 2009 - 6:49 am 27. Bill:

“The problem with being in total control is that, when things still don’t improve, you run out of scapegoats. At some point, it dawns on everyone else that since you are in total control, everything that is going wrong is a direct consequence of your policies, your decisions, and your worldview.”

But it usually is too late by the time that happens: Chavez has run the Venezuelan oil industry into the grounsd, so what does he do? Blame the private-sector oil services companies, and send the Army to take them over. There is *always* a scapegoat: Castro still conveniently blames the US embargo for the ghastly poverty of his island prison.

Even in less dictatorial situations- does anyone think there’s a prayer of Europe ever recovering its economic freedom? Not with the EU, for which national parliaments have become mere rubberstamps. Tossing out Labour won’t do a damn bit of good.

The collectivists are boiling the frog slowly, and it’s working. This is not a time for complacency, but for active denunciation.

Can somebody point out to me a difference between Obama and Mussolini? Anyone?

May 11, 2009 - 6:58 am 28. njcommuter:

Once the collectivist institutions have constituencies (like Social Security and Medicaid) it’s almost impossible to dislodge them, and the attempts to do so can be distorted. Bush’s attempt to put Social Security on a sustainable footing was distorted and shot down, and now the same people who caused the current economic problem are talking about how wise it was to keep trusting them with Social Security.

May 11, 2009 - 6:59 am 29. Gary Ogletree:

I’m optimistic about the American people’s ability to wake up and restore the Constitution and free enterprise. But I think it will take some time, some dead end moves and a lot of suffering. The Tea Parties and the movement to assert the 10th amendment are the most hopeful signs. The Republican party might survive and thrive if it could get a clue.

May 11, 2009 - 7:01 am 30. David Thomson:

Tristan Yates seems not to understand that thinking and following a logical argument is not a natural activity! It is a talent acquired only after much effort. The majority of people will never be able to do so past a minimal level. Abstract arguments over economic matters are generally way over their head. Moreover, they are bored by them. And we should never forget that the majority of today’s liberal arts college degrees are phonier than a three dollar bill. This makes the situation even worse. Our so-called elites are a bunch of dummies.

May 11, 2009 - 7:03 am 31. David Thomson:

“Can somebody point out to me a difference between Obama and Mussolini? Anyone?”

The only real difference is that Mussolini was a violent man. It is more accurate to describe Saul Alinsky as Barack Obama’s political father.

May 11, 2009 - 7:06 am 32. Bonnie_:

I agree that collectivism is on the way out, but it will take the end of the Baby Boomers to bring that about. This generation has nearly brought about the ruin of the Great American dream with their destruction of our schools, our media and our government at the altar of collectivism.

Unfortunately for the Boomers, they are retiring in masses just as their collectivist policies come to full flower. I give you Terry Shiavo Rest Homes, my friends, where the Boomers who cannot feed or take care of themselves will be denied food and water until they die. You tell me what the government is going to do when millions of Boomers are helpless elders and there is no Social Security and not enough tax dollars to support them?

Terry Shiavo time. They bought it, they paid for it, and now it is all theirs.

May 11, 2009 - 7:18 am 33. Emphasis:

I hope he is right, but again, when 50% of the American people pay less than 4% of the income tax burden of the nation you are preparing the road to serfdom, first, for the other 50%, and eventually for all.

Obama is taking advantage of what previous administrations of republicans and democrats allowed to happen; the creation in a significant part of the population of an entitlement and envious mentality which will vote and follow those that will provide them with the money to which they think they are entitled, and the satisfaction of seeing others more successful brought down to their level. I hope down the line we don’t hear the cry of “guillotine, guillotine”

May 11, 2009 - 7:26 am 34. JED:

Tristan:
Thanks for this descriptive piece and keep ringing the alarm bell for collectivism. Collectivism seems to be a re-invention for socialism, fascism,new-age morality, and communism. “For the greater good” seems to be the rally cry for “give us your enterprise.”
I wouldn’t pass on the definitions of collectivism without bringing up that Star Trek classic of the Borg Collective. “Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated!” The phrase in use now is “we won, you lost, get over it!”or “never fail to take advantage of a crisis!” Wait until they offer the implants, for the greater good.

May 11, 2009 - 7:27 am 35. Войска ПВО:

2. BPT (Australia) writes:

“Great point: “This emergency procedure won’t work because the administration is in a no-win situation.” I agree. Obama is in trouble. Cheer up Republicans!”

BPT,

Just a note to let you know that I thoroughly enjoy the comments you post here. It is refreshing to have a sympathetic fan of conservatism from down under. Buy you a Foster some time, mate!

May 11, 2009 - 7:32 am 36. Bilgeman:

#26 Derek:
“You might as well be in 1934 saying social security won’t work,”

It doesn’t. Look at the numbers. An increasingly long-lived population of retirees and a decreasing birth-rate, coupled with the offshoring of high-paying jobs…do the math.

“1960’s saying medicare won’t work…”

It doesn’t. If it worked, why would we even entertain the idea of the need to reform health-care?

“now it’s 2009 and the surety is placed in americans rejecting universal healthcare.”

Oh, it will probably prove as alluring as a line of cocaine on a hooker’s belly, and that will be the problem.

“If you still haven’t beaten the new deal, how the hell do you expect to beat obamanomics?”

The hope is that it can be shown to be a fraud by the objectors now in it’s infancy, before it proves itself to be the collectivist scam that it is.

Because learning that lesson on the back-side, as opposed to up front, will be incredibly painful.

May 11, 2009 - 8:14 am 37. Bill:

“The only real difference is that Mussolini was a violent man. It is more accurate to describe Saul Alinsky as Barack Obama’s political father.”

Except- BIG except- Obama himself soured on Alinskiism because Red Saul preached against the idea or role of the charismatic leader- Obama said this himself, as justification for abndoning “community organizing.” Alinsky’s decentralized movement gospel was anathema to Barry, because Obama the narcissist believes fervently in (being) the charismatic Leader: in Italian, from the verb ducere ‘to lead,’ Il Duce. See also Great Leader, Dear Leader, Fuehrer.

And ACORN and Obama’s other rent-a-mobs are not exactly non-violent- simply up until now the *threat* of violence plus a few broken windows has been sufficient for their purposes.

May 11, 2009 - 8:22 am 38. Andrew:

I think Jonah Goldberg’s book Liberal Fascism shows the truth of this article. It illustrates in an amazing way that we have been down this path before on several occasions – Woodrow Wilson tampering with the mail and many freedoms during WWI, FDR’s New Deal, the Great Society, the War on Poverty, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton – each time the American populace has had an “oh, crap” moment and put a stop to it by electing those who are more conservative (maybe not as conservative as one would wish but at least more so than the Liberals in power). Once this happens, liberal Democrats can (for the most part) only get elected by sounding conservative. A Democrat in sheep’s clothing if you will. So if you want a good book that gives a degree of encouragement – read Goldberg.

May 11, 2009 - 8:28 am 39. Freddie:

The reason that carney barkers, hucksters, lotteries and a belief in collectivism exists is because a sizable number of people actually believe that they can get something for nothing. This particular bit of ignorance needs to be stamped out in our schools, and replaced with the age-tested idea that hard work and perseverance will get you more satisfaction from life than waiting for someone else to decide whether you’re worthy of it.

May 11, 2009 - 8:31 am 40. michael Reynolds:

Yes, ignore the polls. Except for the ones the author cherry-picks and then distorts.

Since Mr. Yates is an “investment analyst” I’ll make only market-based arguments:

1) Wall Street has placed its bets on Obama to succeed.
2) The health care industry just decided to back Obama on reform.

See the problem there? On the one hand we have GOP partisans claiming to speak for all that is profitable. On the other hand we have the actual market and the actual industries.

May 11, 2009 - 8:34 am 41. Bobill:

“…. and while Bush was struggling to defeat al-Qaeda and keep the U.S. from being attacked again, they developed a rapid case of legislative amnesia and started throwing beer bottles from the cheap seats.”

If Bush had struggled the way he should have to defeat al-Qaeda in Afghanistan – instead of spending his energy in justifying the invasion of Iraq – perhaps Afghanistan and Pakistan would not be in such a state of chaos.

May 11, 2009 - 8:35 am 42. Professor Guvinoff:

A victory of liberty over collectivism is equivalent to a victory of reason over emotion. How often does that happen? It is a theoretical possibility, and a worthy goal, but it’s inherently difficult. Collectivism can ruin the economy, as well as crush the individual aspirations, which are only two different sides of the same coin.

This also means that the solution can be approached from two different angles: Defeat the progressives at the next election, and cultivate the love of liberty.

Hmmm… Once again, two faces of the same coin, what a coincidence! When people are demoralized, they need to be reminded about morality, literally!

May 11, 2009 - 8:39 am 43. donttreadonme:

That’s why it is never necessary to “hope or wish” for Obama’s policies to fail. Hoping and wishing are simply not necessary. Heck, throw a ball as high in the air as you can – its coming down is not contingent upon “wishing.” The key question is how long the post-socialist/collectivist clean-up takes and in what shape will our nation be in to defend itself? That is why arguing the logical bullet points with liberals is moot. They ARE wrong. Period. NOTHING they believe in has EVER stood up to reality. Prosperity? Nope. Social justice? Nope. Safer streets? Better schools? Nope and nope. Not opinion, this is empirical data. The proper response is to treat the arrested liberal mind in a way it deserves – with mocking scorn and ridicule (and a few chuckles).

May 11, 2009 - 8:43 am 44. Bill:

“See the problem there? On the one hand we have GOP partisans claiming to speak for all that is profitable. On the other hand we have the actual market and the actual industries.”

Do read up on Peron and Mussolini and (to a lesser extent) Hitler. The huge corporate interests are willing allies and tools of fascists: crony capitalism, where they get profits shoved their way for playing ball, and competiors squelched. Just take a look at how Goldman Sachs has made out like bandits (under both admins) through its subsidiaries, Treasury and the Fed.

May 11, 2009 - 8:58 am 45. johnt:

Bobill, that’s it, blame it on Bush, not on the muslim fanatics that are pledged to a lifetime of war. Of course you forget, if you ever knew, that Afghanistan was being called, identified, as a quagmire within a few short weeks of the initial invasion, by liberals. It’s amazing what hindsight can do isn’t it? You also forget, if you were ever conscious of it, that every year since the invasion of Iraq our operations there have been funded by both parties, whoever has controlled Congress.
You may want to read Victor Davis Hanson’s column on this site today. You may even want to think about it.
And don’t forget to give just a little blame to the jihadist murderers, I mean just to take a little off Bush’s shoulders, if you can.

May 11, 2009 - 9:14 am 46. Pastor of Muppets:

This article is bogus for the same reason that nearly every article on this site that attempts to critique progressivism is bogus.

It attempts to conflate “collectivism” and “progressivism” as two identical movements, which is akin to claiming that conservatism and libertarianism are identical movements, which is also completely bogus.

“Collectivism” is bound to fail just as libertarianism is bound to fail. But progressivism is not collectivism. Progressivism is simply a wide, mutable set of social/political beliefs whose foundation is that political and social systems need to adapt as new facts and data are discovered, which is counter to the conservative principle that traditional social/political structures ought to remain static.

The claim that progressivism is collectivism, or that it inevitably leads to collectivism, is ignorant and baseless. The real issue here is not any conflated relationship between progressivism and collectivism; the issue here is that the folks on this and other far-right Web sites have become so reactionary that they lack the perspective to make clear, cogent discrepancies between any different schools of thought; to the reactionaries, anyone who is even a centimeter to the left of ‘conservative’ is automatically branded as a Marxist/Socialist/Totalitarian/Collectivist/Sith.

So, for the author to say that ‘collectivism’ is in its last gasp, he is about 50 years too late; the Communist movement in this country effectively died decades ago.

But if the author believes that ‘progressivism’ is dying, I think he needs to get out of his basement, and go and take a walk outside among the 70% of Americans who support the President and his policies, as well as do a bit of research on how many of our nation’s youth identify themselves as “progressives” versus “conservatives”.

May 11, 2009 - 9:16 am 47. michael Reynolds:

BIll:

I love being lectured on history by someone who equates Obama with Peron, Il Duce and Hitler. Yes, that really establishes your historical cred.

May 11, 2009 - 9:26 am 48. Juvenal:

Of course Tristan Yates is right about where the collectivist regime will eventually lead the country. Collapse is what we’ve been trying to prevent. We shouldn’t look forward to collapse as a point where we’ll turn the tables or a time when we’ll be vindicated. We’ve already been vindicated, over and over and over. All one has to do is have the benefit of a good education, supplemented by a broad personal program of reading.

But that’s the problem, isn’t it? People who don’t have the ability or inclination to think for themselves can and will fall victim to the blandishments and lies of get rich quick schemes and demagogues who promise something for nothing.

The ideas that Reagan carried with him into office were superior to the Left’s alternatives. But he didn’t win because the electorate was able to appreciate this. He won because of his personal magnetism and his ability to give hope to a nervous and suffering people(I say “suffering” not because people really were suffering in any significant way but because they perceived themselves to be suffering).

The point of my saying this is that the vast run of people exist outside of ideas (which are abstractions) altogether. They may pay lip service to some shred of doctrine they’ve gotten hold of; but they’ll turn on it that doctrine (and the one who taught it to them) very quickly if they think that it doesn’t work.

What Tristan is basically saying is that “you’ll ultimately win because you’re right.”

No. No. We won’t. I see our task as 1% developing and refining ideas and 99% finding a charismatic leader who can get those ideas across in a way that makes people feel good in some ways.

May 11, 2009 - 9:43 am 49. MattB:

I am beginning to come to making a direct correlation between the number of Telepromter speeches by Obama and the weakening confidence of our great country. A sad time.

May 11, 2009 - 9:46 am 50. scott:

Only problem with this Pollyanna take on our predicament is it assumes a significant percent of the American population has a brain and a heart riding heard on said brain.

This is not the case. The average american has been reduced to near vegetable level consciousness caring only for his toys and his playtime. They don’t read. They pay no attention to the news or current events. They can’t make change without an LED screen and a keypad.

The few Americans who are capable of going on to university and actually making grades in the hard sciences or business are either thoroughly brainwashed or bought off. Or both.

But there ARE 30 or 40 million of us out here in the environment who ‘get it’. I wonder how many of these are christians who have turned around and decided that political involvement does not work and are now waiting quietly for the ‘rapture’. Anyway …. our minority needs to make more noise. We probably need to evacuate the NE, move South and start secession movements.

May 11, 2009 - 10:02 am 51. Freddie:

#46 – Just because the nation’s youth identify themselves as progressives doesn’t mean they know anything about politics.

And your silly idea that “political and social systems need to adapt as new facts and data are discovered” runs counter to the history of humanity.

Please tell me what you and this administration have recently “discovered” that is so new different from the way we humans behaved, say, 50 or 100 years ago? I can guarantee you that the same desires and actions were on display then as now.

Progressivism is no more a new way of doing things than a childish tantrum to stop living by the rules and making up new ones on the fly.

Watch this administration and you’ll see new examples every day. From tax cheats to upending contract law, it is indeed as if children are now in charge.

May 11, 2009 - 10:16 am 52. Bill:

Michael Reynolds:

Someone who denies that there are parallels between Obamanomics and Mussolini’s Corporative State has just flushed any claim to “historical cred.”

Do yourself a favor: read up on the Istituo per la Recostruzione Industriale.

But then, if libs knew history, they wouldn’t be libs.

May 11, 2009 - 10:23 am 53. Pastor of Muppets:

scott: “Only problem with this Pollyanna take on our predicament is it assumes a significant percent of the American population has a brain and a heart riding heard on said brain.

This is not the case. The average american has been reduced to near vegetable level consciousness caring only for his toys and his playtime. They don’t read. They pay no attention to the news or current events. They can’t make change without an LED screen and a keypad.

The few Americans who are capable of going on to university and actually making grades in the hard sciences or business are either thoroughly brainwashed or bought off. Or both.

But there ARE 30 or 40 million of us out here in the environment who ‘get it’. I wonder how many of these are christians who have turned around and decided that political involvement does not work and are now waiting quietly for the ‘rapture’. Anyway …. our minority needs to make more noise. We probably need to evacuate the NE, move South and start secession movements.”

I love this hysterical reactionary right wing meme that because Obama is POTUS, it must mean that the entire country must have all of a sudden downed stupid pills, because although it’s completely reasonable that an intelligent person could have voted for Bush, it’s impossible that an intelligent person could have voted for Obama.

This meme would clearly be a lot easier to swallow if one could simply ignore the fact that left is made up of Nobel Prize winners such as Paul Krugman, whereas the right gets to enjoy the company of idiots like Joe the Plumber/Republican Party Quitter. Apparently, folks on this board are ignoring that fact daily.

May 11, 2009 - 10:32 am 54. Sonja:

Don’t forget “corporatism.”

May 11, 2009 - 10:44 am 55. D-wah:

#40–Reynolds-wrap:–baloney. “market-based assessments”-yeah, right. You’re a typical unconditional supporter of this psycho-charade.

1. Wall street is on life-support having been de-balled and demonized, and is cowering with fear. Any little bump is a suckers’ rally. He’s declared war against capitalism and you say Wall Street’s “placed its bets on Obama to succeed.” Who told you to think that, cuz it’s certainly not evident. Oh, you mainline the MSM, that’s right.
2. The health care industry is being strong-armed. What, they’re gonna say to these thugs that they’re not gonna cooperate? Again, you swallow the news version. I bet that Hedge Fund lawyer speaking up about White House threats was “inconvenient” for your type, wasn’t it.

This is exactly what this article is talking about. The myriad flaws in this phony facade will eventually cause it to break apart and fail and be seen for what it is. History doesn’t lie. My concern is that by the time the majority of soma-swallowers wake up it’ll be too late, with the rate the O-team is eroding personal freedoms, wealth and property. Watch for the misnamed “fairness doctrine”, internet policing, gun control, civilian police force, DHS spying on conservatives, etc. These are tools he’s already working on building and must have to complete his takeover.

This is a massive power grab and social, economic and political progressive restructuring. That anyone can’t see that or is OK with it, is disturbing.

I do believe this is progressivism’s last gasp–the question is, how long will it last and how many will suffer?

May 11, 2009 - 10:49 am 56. austin tx personal trainers:

With all the money spent on Great Society programs you could buy all the Fortune 500 companies plus all the farmland in the US – paraphasing Thomas Sowell. You would think something positive would result as a result of this massive spending. After all the billions spent on the Great society programs the disaster is plain to see. The response from the left is, “the reason is has not worked is because not enough money was spent”. When this present disaster unfolds they make the same claim.

May 11, 2009 - 10:50 am 57. Paddy:

I agree with the author’s assessment of the collective-progressive nature of Obama and the Dems governance. I totally disagree that they are near the end of their run.

Obama is bribing many Americans with their own money to become dependent on the dole and captives of future government largess. His objective is to form a majority alliance of union members, certain minorities who are traditionally vote Democrat, cultural elitists, and those too ignorant to know what is happening. He is succeeding.

His support will, if not already, be a strongly committed majority of voters. Any semblance of democracy will soon disappear to b replaced by fascist system.

Sadly, if Obama and the cabal that runs him succeed, it will take a coup to replace him and restore constitutional rule.

May 11, 2009 - 11:34 am 58. Pastor of Muppets:

Freddie: “#46 – Just because the nation’s youth identify themselves as progressives doesn’t mean they know anything about politics.

And your silly idea that “political and social systems need to adapt as new facts and data are discovered” runs counter to the history of humanity.

Please tell me what you and this administration have recently “discovered” that is so new different from the way we humans behaved, say, 50 or 100 years ago? I can guarantee you that the same desires and actions were on display then as now. “

I speak not of changes to humanity; I’ll agree that humanity has chnaged little since its dawning over 200,000 years ago. I speak rather of changes in terms of how we view humanity and the chnages to our laws that correspond to our changing view. For example, 100 years ago, neither women nor blacks could vote because the traditional, conservative view was that both groups were incapable of possessing the intellect necessary to understand the voting process. Children under the age of ten were being worked to death in factories and sweat shops because the traditional, conservative view was that children did not have the right to an education, nor did they have the right to safe working conditions. Without a progressive movement to reinterperate our view of the intellectual capacities of blacks and women as well as the plight of exploited children, the laws would not have changed.

May 11, 2009 - 11:35 am 59. Mike2:

41. Bobill:

I hate to give you the bad news but Afghanistan and the area that is now Pakistan have been in and out of chaos for thousands of years. It is their natural state especially Afghanistan. Not even Alexander the Great could produce order there.

May 11, 2009 - 11:35 am 60. Mike2:

46. Pastor of Muppets:

I see you have your teleprompter going again. Did you pay your taxes today??

May 11, 2009 - 11:39 am 61. Jim Baker:

Yea, Tristan. While we are pontificating about our obviously more rational position, the American unionized public schools are pumping out little irrational collectivists by the millions every year. And, they get to vote by the time they are 18, which is at least 5 years before the real world starts to change their opinions. We are being trampled by pervasive collectivist propaganda and, cup half-empty here, I don’t believe we are making any headway at all. I wish I could be optimistic about the future, but I have been watching this for my entire and considerable adult life.

May 11, 2009 - 11:41 am 62. mishu:

Progressivism is simply a wide, mutable set of social/political beliefs whose foundation is that political and social systems need to adapt as new facts and data are discovered, which is counter to the conservative principle that traditional social/political structures ought to remain static.

Yet the “progressives” always reach for the collectivist tool which you claim has been dead for fifty years. Why is it that these alleged progressives reach for arcane technology and ideas in their quest to move forward? Coal power generation allegedly too dirty for the environment? Let’s not use modern nuclear fission as a step towards fusion reaction. No, they want us to use ancient Persian technology and carpet the country with windmills. Market inefficiencies in delivering medical services? Damn the market and force collective utilization. Yeah, that’s real progress.

May 11, 2009 - 11:55 am 63. michael Reynolds:

Bill:

It’s certainly baffling to me that you guys are hemorrhaging support. I would have thought a movement that equates depression-era Italy with the current United States would have people flocking to your banner. I mean, the parallels are just so totally obvious!

On the one hand an essentially agricultural nation, in the midst of a massive depression, under the control on a dictator bent on empire. On the other hand the world’s oldest, richest and most powerful democracy under the sway of a democratically-elected president.

Why the similarities are obvious!

You really want to learn to separate your partisanship from your reading of history. Obama is not Mussolini. I know you want him to be, but he’s not. And this ain’t Italy. And there are just about no meaningful parallels between our economic superpower and a weak and fractured European state seven decades ago.

In point of fact Obama isn’t threatening capitalism, he’s rescuing it. And the degree of intervention we’re talking about isn’t Italy 1933, it’s less radical than modern day Sweden or Britain or Germany, none of which you will notice, is dominated by a comic-opera tyrant.

May 11, 2009 - 11:55 am 64. Green Eagle:

From the very first comment:
“Wonderful! Finally someone has articulated here not just another conservative whine about Obama….”

No, it is a perfectly monumental example of wingnut delusion. Of course progressivism’s success is its failure. Down is up. Right is wrong. And everything is the opposite of what it appears.

Don’t you guys ever get tired of making fools of yourselves?

May 11, 2009 - 12:06 pm 65. Banned by Huffpo:

27. “The collectivists are boiling the frog slowly, and it’s working. This is not a time for complacency, but for active denunciation.”

True, but please watch (if you haven’t done so already) “Idiocracy.” Those actively denouncing Obama and his power grab will gradually fade into the background; and, as one poster already noted:

“Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.”

Why do The Borg resemble modern day “progressives”? Because they do.

May 11, 2009 - 12:22 pm 66. johnt:

Obama is fascism with an earnest face, and a teleprompter to help him look oratorical.
After eight years of having the fascist thing thrown at Bush by leftists, there are no liberals, now we get the real thing and they love it.
It’s only just beginning, the company takeovers, the gifts of ownership to favorite groups, the ultimatums to states [ California], the slanders and threats directed at those who disagree, the grasping for unlimited power, it’s all there in the open & more.
And the lunatics who for eight years tossed around “fascists”, “theocrats”, and every other insult they didn’t understand couldn’t be happier. Nah, leftists aren’t nuts, it only looks that way.
Thanks a lot fools !!

May 11, 2009 - 12:32 pm 67. Bill:

“progressivism’s success is its failure”

As if collectivism (which is what modern “progressives” are really pushing) has *ever* done other than fail. It is guaranteed to fail. Obama’s new-old collectivism will fail. The question is whether anything will be left by the time Ogabe’s done: because collectivism ultimately depends on coercion, otherwise it can’t exist.

“Wingnuts” indeed! The only person making a fool of himself is you, the lefty pinhead who is convinced that this time, it’s *gotta* work.

Nope.

—————-

Michael Reynolds: Peron was democratically elected, too. So was Hitler, and Chavez. Sorry, Obama’s idea of “rescuing” capitalism by making it into non-capitalism is rather a non-starter. Threats and strongarm tactics to transfer property from its legal owners to political cronies is very, very redolent of what happened to industry in that “rural” country eighty years ago.

How ironic that FIAT was an accomplice both times!

Obama of course is not “bent on empire,” (in fact he’s an acolyte of transnationalism) nor is he a tyrant (although he certainly has authoritarian instincts). But his *economic* prescriptions come right out of the Fascist playbook.

May 11, 2009 - 12:40 pm 68. Moogie:

“Collectivism should have been burned in effigy in 1991 with the fall of the Soviet Union. At that point, both communism and fascism were completely discredited as viable political systems and just about every country in the world was opening its economy.”

But you have to look at what Russia is doing today: trying to gobble back up those states that were created as a result of the Soviet Union’s demise. And they’re trying it by force, which means, once again, the only way to rule the masses will be through some form of collectivism – which inevitably ends in tyranny.

One poster above said it takes work and energy to reason things out, to think logically, and that it’s more work than most Americans want to undertake. Well, he was right. Too many people are complacent enough to just get up, go to work, come home, eat, then flop. Let someone else worry about the details. Let someone else figure out what this Obama guy is up to. And because of this cud-chewing mindset, I am not too optimistic about the future of America as we watch our Constitution become more and more irrelevant as the government becomes more relevant.

May 11, 2009 - 12:41 pm 69. Frank:

Muppet Pastor Baiter,
“Progressivism is simply a wide, mutable set of social/political beliefs whose foundation is that political and social systems need to adapt as new facts and data are discovered, which is counter to the conservative principle that traditional social/political structures ought to remain static.”

The key word in your definition here is mutable, i.e. changeable, and that says it all. I truly appreciate your honest admission that your social political beliefs are dependent on the circumstances, unlike we conservatives whose beliefs rest on the foundation of principles outlined in the constitution – - and contrary to your assertion that document does not remain static.

Nice of you favor a conservative website with such clarity and for showing us once and for all that “progressive principle” is an oxymoron.

The only thing conservatives are trying to conserve is the constitution, which provides all the neccessary provisions to “adapt as new facts and data are discovered”.

When change is part of your defining DNA I can see how change for its own sake is mistaken for progress. It’s all you have.

Unlike prgressive at least conservatism has a relationaship with it’s root word. Unless of course you could point to any progressive program that you know, actually resulted in progress. New Deal? Unions? Great Society? Medicare? Anything?

May 11, 2009 - 12:46 pm 70. RandyChandler:

Muppet-head: “…the issue here is that the folks on this and other far-right Web sites have become so reactionary that they lack the perspective to make clear, cogent discrepancies between any different schools of thought; to the reactionaries, anyone who is even a centimeter to the left of ‘conservative’ is automatically branded as a Marxist/Socialist/Totalitarian/Collectivist/Sith.”

Did you type that with a straight face? Why waste your time dumping your idiotic rhetoric here? You and the moron who says Obama is “rescuing” the economy should get together and blow smoke up each other’s anal orifice. Your efforts here are wasted.

May 11, 2009 - 1:00 pm 71. El hefe:

Yes most people are going to go for the free health care and the free this and the free that and not think twice about it and the rational people know that this will be the case because of the behavior trends over the last decades. Free, Free, Free! I got it on sale honey!
Come on, don’t kid yourselves. It’s the biggest sucker scam in the world.
When these sucker scam artists are done suckering they just fold up the tent and move on to the next suckers. When do they move on? When the money runs out or the heat gets too hot.
So we have a race with two horses and who will win? The one named “Money Runs Out” or “The Heat Gets Too Hot”?
The scammers have a problem though; there is no place to move to. They are on the biggest most visible stage in history with all eyes fixed on them. No one will miss the conclusion of this drama. It will be the greatest lesson in history of what not to do. The brains behind the watching eyes will learn a valuable visual lesson at the conclusion of the race. “I’ll never do that again”!
Because no matter what the conclusion, there will be HELL to pay and suffering for all.

May 11, 2009 - 1:01 pm 72. elvis:

Obama is the Second- Hander- in- Chief. Collectivism will end with him!

May 11, 2009 - 1:20 pm 73. Freddie:

#58 – “Without a progressive movement to reinterperate our view of the intellectual capacities of blacks and women as well as the plight of exploited children, the laws would not have changed.”

Exactly right. And the laws changed just as they should have, through a deliberate legislative process as outlined in the US Constitution.

If that’s your definition of progressivism, fine. But that’s not what’s on display in Washington these days.

May 11, 2009 - 1:31 pm 74. Bilgeman:

#69 Frank:
“The key word in your definition here is mutable, i.e. changeable, and that says it all.”

Yeah, I caught that too.

“Progressivism” is whatever they say it is at the moment, with no relation to what it might have been in the past, and no certainty that it won’t mean completely the opposite in the future.

Why do I feel that the ghost of Orwell is looking over my shoulder as I post this, and nodding?

May 11, 2009 - 1:32 pm 75. Pastor of Muppets:

Frank: “The key word in your definition here is mutable, i.e. changeable, and that says it all. I truly appreciate your honest admission that your social political beliefs are dependent on the circumstances, unlike we conservatives whose beliefs rest on the foundation of principles outlined in the constitution – - and contrary to your assertion that document does not remain static.

Nice of you favor a conservative website with such clarity and for showing us once and for all that “progressive principle” is an oxymoron.

The only thing conservatives are trying to conserve is the constitution, which provides all the neccessary provisions to “adapt as new facts and data are discovered”.

When change is part of your defining DNA I can see how change for its own sake is mistaken for progress. It’s all you have.”

The history of the world is marked throughout by a cardinal rule: adapt or die.

The history of the Conservative movement is the history of a bunch of backwards, ignorant old men railing against progress for the sake of preserving their chokehold on the culture. It’s the history of idiots screaming that the earth is flat, that the sun revolves around the earth, and that earth is 6,000 years old, that evolution never happened, that illness is caused by demonic possession, and that blacks don’t have the intellectual capacity to be free or vote, and that women don’t have that intellectual capacity either, that Jews are a parasitic, subhuman species, or that being gay is a Satanic affliction.

In each case, the ‘conservative’ notion has been replaced by the ‘progressive’ one.

In each case, despite ignorant conservatives railing against progress, the world adapted to new facts, and our knowledge and view of the world evolved. And the hokey conservative myths and lies died.

See a pattern emerging?

May 11, 2009 - 1:38 pm 76. djaces:

I wish I could be as sanguine about the prospect of the demise of collectivism as Mr. Yates, but if rational analysis had anything to do with collectivism’s continued persistence it would have been dead before Obama was even born. The leftists long ago realized they had little chance of implementing their agenda through any [small d] democratic process, but also that perception is reality and have spent the last forty years seeking and achieving total dominance of all the levers of perception in our society. News and entertainment media and, most importantly education have been controlled by them and their fellow travelers for so long that we are now well into a second generation who have spent their entire lives without being exposed to to any information that wasn’t colored by a leftist slant. The Obama moment was the culmination of decades of effort and if you think the meltdown of the financial markets that assured his ascendancy was merely an unfortunate coincidence I suggest you Google the “Cloward- Piven strategy” and spend some time reading what you find there. The leftists’ unqualified success at manipulating events and the public perception of those events has given them exactly the power they desired and they have and will use it to insure that by the time the 2010 midterms roll around they’ll have a working supermajority of the populous who have no stake in American society except as recipients of the stolen property of others. If, as now seems almost inevitable, they are able to enact their agenda of universal health care, amnesty for illegals, cap and trade, and free college for everyone, no conceivable voter rebellion will be able turn back the clock in our lifetime or probably in our children’s lifetimes either. The EU distopias provide a cogent example of the difficulty of kicking the seductive addiction of the public trough, though how they’ll deal with their problems when the implicit subsidy the American economy has always provided is lost, due to the chaos the ObamaPelosiReid program will create, will be an interesting sidebar in our perilous future

May 11, 2009 - 1:40 pm 77. Francis Luong (Franco):

Yates’s article demonstrates the problems with agreeing with the fundamentals of altruism while arguing against collectivism. For example, he concedes that Collectivism indeed “appeals to virtue”. Further, Yates does not argue that the government has every right to interfere in healthcare and argues over implementation details (Healthcare vouchers) rather than discussing whether the government has a fundamental right to get involved. Because of this, his arguments fall flat and lack the sincerity of those arguing for Collectivism based on Altruistic grounds.

Conservatives need to realize that the only grounds on which a person can defend capitalism and the profit motive is based on a moral system of rational egoism (that is, that rational self-interest is *the* good).

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-winter/capitalism-moral-high-ground.asp
http://tinyurl.com/5ltyzd

May 11, 2009 - 2:03 pm 78. Ed Wallis:

#75 PoM PoM girl: Please spare us all the “all the world’S history follows progressives” cr*p.

It only highlights the Leftists’ “our current “absolutely-true-and-full-of-empathy interpretation of the U.S. Constitution…for the next 5 minutes…until a different interpretation serves our purposes better” nonsense.

May 11, 2009 - 2:10 pm 79. Bilgeman:

#75 PoM:
“The history of the Conservative movement is the history of a bunch of backwards, ignorant old men railing against progress for the sake of preserving their chokehold on the culture.”

If that were so, it would seem to me that you would belong to the conservatives, you’re certainly one of the most backwards and ignorant sexists I’ve run across today.

Because not all progress is desirable, just because it’s a change.

There needs to be rational people,(men AND women), who essentially say:

“Not so fast, Sparky! What on earth are you rushing us into?”

A very great part of the sad and bloody history of the twentieth century transpired precisely for the reason that such people were bullied, shouted down or ignored, and to deny that this was so would mark you as a monumental imbecile.

So I challenge you to catalog the catastrophes of “progress” as assiduously as you did the errors of conservatism.

Rummage around the old memory hole and tell us what you find.

May 11, 2009 - 2:15 pm 80. AThinkingPerson:

Re: Pastor of Muppets continually repeated notion…”But if the author believes that ‘progressivism’ is dying, I think he needs to get out of his basement, and go and take a walk outside among the 70% of Americans who support the President and his policies, as well as do a bit of research on how many of our nation’s youth identify themselves as “progressives” versus “conservatives”. **yawn**

I submit the following polling that shows ONLY 34% of Americans STRONGLY agree with TeleBama so far. Hopefully you will quit lying about the 70% BS for once. It’s not only wrong, it’s getting old. If you’re going to pontificate your liberal agenda on here at least you could get your facts right for once.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

May 11, 2009 - 2:21 pm 81. Lark:

[i] This emergency procedure won’t work because the administration is in a no-win situation. If the economy is still floundering by the end of the summer then it’s going to be difficult to tell Americans that more money or regulation is the solution. But if the economy begins to improve, the crisis is over and there’s little justification for sweeping economic changes. [/i]

This emergency procedure must work because the administration is in a no-lose situation. If the economy is still floundering by the end of the summer then they will tell Americans that it’s obviously because there wasn’t enough money or regulation. (Nobelist Krugman is doing so already) And if the economy begins to improve, the crisis is obviously over because of their sweeping economic changes, so more would be even better.

I agree that the American people won’t believe them when they say it this time, but that’s sort of the point – Obama & Co (government, media, and schools) think they can get more than half of the people dependent on government and thus they will [i]want[\i] to believe it. And if that happens, put a fork in it and call it the USSA.

May 11, 2009 - 2:48 pm 82. Paul of Alexandria:

michael Reynolds (47):

BIll:

I love being lectured on history by someone who equates Obama with Peron, Il Duce and Hitler. Yes, that really establishes your historical cred.

Er, actually it does. Not to say that Obama is a murderous meglomaniac (at least not yet), but study history and you’ll see that he’s following very nicely in the footsteps of the fascist dictators of yore. For instance, the government takeover of GM and Chrysler is a perfect implementation of Peronist nationalization tactics.

May 11, 2009 - 2:59 pm 83. Frank:

Muppet Pastor Baiter,

…”In each case, the ‘conservative’ notion has been replaced by the ‘progressive’ one.”

Charges that conservatives are against change squares with neither facts or history.
The real debate is about the type of change and how to go about its effective implementation once it is established in accordance with the rules laid out in the constitution – - a necessarily cumbersome process. Progressives say damn the constitution full speed ahead.

And no, I don’t see a pattern there, excepting the same one we always get from lefty trolls; when you can’t argue the facts just call names and make stuff up. And brother you listed the entire littany of golden oldies, racist, mysogenist, anti-semite, bible thumper, blah, blah, blah.

Pity your creativity is right up there with your knowledge of history. For example; The KKK was an early ally of the progressive movement, lots of membership overlap, and the latter was also a huge advocate for eugenics lead by Margaret Sanger one the patron saints of modern progressivism. I nor any conservative will be lectured on racism by the likes of you or any progressive.

The first female Supreme Court Justice courtesy Ronald Reagan and the first Black woman to serve as Sec State courtesy GW Bush so it sorta puts that mysogeny canard to rest too. And how you can call conservatives, the loudest most ardent defenders of Israel anti-semitic simply defies comprehension – - though I am quite sure it makes perfect sense to you.

Also noticed you didn’t bother defending the charge your belief system is based on a shifting foundation. But then you can’t since it was the definition you provided – - so at least we can agree on that…

May 11, 2009 - 3:07 pm 84. Paul of Alexandria:

Pastor of Muppets (75):

…
The history of the Conservative movement is the history of a bunch of backwards, ignorant old men railing against progress for the sake of preserving their chokehold on the culture. It’s the history of idiots screaming that the earth is flat, that the sun revolves around the earth, and that earth is 6,000 years old, that evolution never happened, that illness is caused by demonic possession, and that blacks don’t have the intellectual capacity to be free or vote, and that women don’t have that intellectual capacity either, that Jews are a parasitic, subhuman species, or that being gay is a Satanic affliction.

Wrong. Conservatives examine proposed changes in the light of a very simple question: “what has worked and how does this new concept compare?” Does the proposed change correspond with reality? Does it go against what is known to work? Does it consider all of the various secondary and tertiary side effects? How has this kind of proposal worked in the past? Is this really “progress” in a positive direction? Or is it only progressing down a path headed in the wrong direction?

Con artists try to present old ideas as new, banking on their victims ignorance of history and reality. The Ponzi scheme is as old as the concept of investment itself, but Madoff succeeded in applying it again anyways. “Progressives” try to peddle government-run health care, banking on the public’s ignorance of its failed history. They try and sell us on collectivist government control of industry, hoping that no one will remember that approach’s failures in Europe and Russia.

I challenge you, PoM, to show me a single item in Obama’s agenda where he can say: yes, we have examined history and the known behaviors of human societies and have made sure that we are not repeating past mistakes. You can’t, because Obama is doing nothing but selling us another Ponzi scheme, which is sure to collapse in the end.

May 11, 2009 - 3:13 pm 85. Moogie:

Pastor of Muppets says: “The history of the Conservative movement is the history of a bunch of backwards, ignorant old men railing against progress for the sake of preserving their chokehold on the culture. It’s the history of idiots screaming that the earth is flat, that the sun revolves around the earth, and that earth is 6,000 years old, that evolution never happened, that illness is caused by demonic possession, and that blacks don’t have the intellectual capacity to be free or vote, and that women don’t have that intellectual capacity either, that Jews are a parasitic, subhuman species, or that being gay is a Satanic affliction.”

Moogie says: Pastor of Muppets has done an excellent job of describing liberals. He doesn’t realize it, but he’s cheering for the wrong team.

I love sharing this video (ignore the bizarre intro – it’s very 70s) – this will tell you everything you need to know about collectivism and exactly why it is ALWAYS doomed to fail:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfdRpyfEmBE

May 11, 2009 - 3:17 pm 86. djaces:

Pastor of Muppets

The history of the Conservative movement is the history of a bunch of backwards, ignorant old men railing against progress for the sake of preserving their chokehold on the culture. It’s the history of idiots screaming that the earth is flat, that the sun revolves around the earth, and that earth is 6,000 years old, that evolution never happened, that illness is caused by demonic possession, and that blacks don’t have the intellectual capacity to be free or vote, and that women don’t have that intellectual capacity either, that Jews are a parasitic, subhuman species, or that being gay is a Satanic affliction.

Before making this argument you might want to consider which side of the political argument is running around declaring that the sky is falling because of relatively modest increases in the quantity of of a chemical compound that is essential to virtually all of life on the planet, arguing that almost every ailment humanity suffers is the result of the conspiratorial connivance of government and Big Pharma, claiming that despite all the achievements of black people in the last forty years, blacks would be crushed by lingering effects of their history without the continuing support of the political class [BTW, Jim Crow and the KKK were created by Democrats and a higher proportion of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights and Voting rights Acts]. As to women, one side claims her right to choose is absolutely paramount, except of course, if she chooses not to worship at the altar of the abortionists,to own a gun, to be a Republican, or in any other way dissent from their agenda. I wouldn’t lean to hard on that antisemitism leg of your argument either, since most of the recent resurgence in that shameful stain comes from kaffir wearing louts who aren’t regular visitors here. Finally we have the gays about which I would ask just one question. How exactly do you justify creating a governmentally protected victim class for a group whose sole defining characteristic is an elective behavior and whose members, by all the usual metrics of oppressed minorities i.e. education, employment, and wealth, are well above societal means? By that construct I and my fellow cigarette smokers are much more deserving of victim status, being largely lower income and subject to much higher levels of discrimination, persecution, and governmental abuse than gays have been for decades.

May 11, 2009 - 3:28 pm 87. Moogie:

… and one more thing that I wish liberals would understand. Being a conservative does not mean we want to go back to riding horses and churning our own butter.

It means conserving the Constitution. Where have liberals gotten the idea that being a conservative means being a stuffy old man? I sure as hell am not a stuffy old man.

And I wish they’d stop using the word “progressive.” That’s not what a liberal is working for: progress. A liberal is a “regressive.” Collectivism is going backward, not forward.

Adapt and change? Change to what? What the hell does that even mean? Adapt? Adapt to what? Why should I adapt to something that isn’t Constitutional? How about YOU go live where the collectivism you value is already in place. In that lovely utopia everyone will agree with you and all will be equal.

The one thing that America has which no other nation can claim is the Constitution. The Constitution is all about liberty, which engenders free enterprise, which spurs creativity, which sprouts invention… THAT is progress.

Collectivism is the opposite: it suppresses free enterprise (the government becomes our corporations), represses creativity (why bother?), and it snuffs out invention (again, why bother if the government is going to do everything?).

- End of sermon.

May 11, 2009 - 3:35 pm 88. TheMightyMonarch:

“I love this hysterical reactionary right wing meme that because Obama is POTUS, it must mean that the entire country must have all of a sudden downed stupid pills, because although it’s completely reasonable that an intelligent person could have voted for Bush, it’s impossible that an intelligent person could have voted for Obama.”

The stupid pills were taken long before the TOTUS came to power. We’ve been swallowing the same line since the days of FDR, that everyone can somehow receive something for nothing and that government should be the Guarantor of Everything. Obama is just a younger version of FDR, and I don’t mean that in a good way.

We’ve been voting ourselves stupid for over eighty years. We get it right every once in a while…that’s how we got Reagan. Other times we get a first-term Senator who was mentored by slumlords, racist preachers, and violent radicals.

May 11, 2009 - 4:21 pm 89. D-wah:

Moogs–great clip on Friedman–thanks! You could have added above like he did, we’re the true liberals, “of and pertaining to liberty”. They’re the statist conservatives–keeping the statist status quo. It’s true, conservative has the wrong connotation in today’s world, it’s backwards. (notice how they’re “environmentalists”, not “conservationists” any more.) His explanation was riveting–the daring nature of our precious free country, how we’re for “voluntary cooperative action” and its difficult maintenance, and his distinguishing between intentions and results, objectives vs the effect. The progressive (I agree, misnomer) blindfolding tactic with their phony empathy and semantics games and refusal to see their effects is dumbfounding to observe.
Thanks again–you posted that before I think but this time I bit-:)

May 11, 2009 - 4:31 pm 90. westerncanadian:

No matter if the article is overly optimistic or not – collectivism is just plain nasty. How many “progressives”, “bien pensants”, “trade unionists” have you run into who LOVE humanity, but HATE people.

In my experience the LOVE of humanity never gets in the way of hurting or impoverishing an individual. Collectivists even act like cannibals when they profess LOVE for their brother collectivists but happily destroy one of their own.

I’ll say it again: collectivists are nasty.

May 11, 2009 - 4:47 pm 91. michael Reynolds:

Paul Of Alexandria:

Actually, if there’s a relevant historical parallel it might be to Nixon’s wage and price controls or to Harry Truman’s nationalization of the steel industry.

If you or your idiot buddy Bill actually read any history you might have seized on one of those examples. But of course they wouldn’t validate your paranoid wingnuttery so you went to Peron and Mussolini and Hitler. Why? Because the only history any of you know is what’s spoon-fed to you by talk radio and wingnut blogs.

Obama had the perfect opportunity to nationalize the banks. There were Nobel laureates begging him to do just that. He declined. Which blows a rather gigantic hole in your theory. ( In economic terms the banks are SUV’s and the auto industry is a scooter.)

Nor is engineering a merger of Chrysler with Fiat nationalization. Unless you hold that the earlier merger with Daimler was nationalization.

In other words: 1) You know zip about history. 2) You regurgitate the usual wingnut crapola and pretend it is original to. 3) The facts bear out no part of your paranoid vision. 4) You will have no interest in changing your opinion to conform with the facts. In fact you will be, like all of your ilk, utterly indifferent to facts.

Which is why the country is not just walking but running away from you and people like you and your staggering wreck of a party.

May 11, 2009 - 5:25 pm 92. Karen:

http://market-ticker.org/archives/1030-The-Economic-Tsunami-Is-Curling-Over.html

Our economy will collapse at some point. It’s a certainty. When there is no money to write checks out to those who prefer sitting home waiting for a handout, then and only then will those people see how they have been had. They will have no survival skills and will have no where to turn when the money runs out. Those of us who have been stolen from are preparing. Those in fantasy land won’t know what hit them.

May 11, 2009 - 5:32 pm 93. exceller:

During the Clinton years I was optimistic enough to believe this argument, that collectivism would fail, but I’m not optimistic now. We’re too far down the path, Obama will implement his ruinous agenda in one form or another. Once the programs are started they will never die. the only discussion will revolve around how to fix them, not to destroy them. I hate to say it but in a way collectivism has already won. I just read today that only 24% of Americans can identify what cap and trade is. The other 76% are mesmerized by Michelles arms. Let’s face it, we have a very stupid and lethargic country for the most part, and as others have mentioned, we didn’t just get stupid overnight, it’s been a long slide. The last straw was the capitulation of the media into a propaganda machine, that has a large effect with so many people needing to be led.
I’ll keep fighting but I’m not optimistic.

May 11, 2009 - 6:08 pm 94. Jonathan:

I pray you’re right but fear you’re not. I fear that there is little to stop Obama even in the face of a majority who oppose his polices. Federalism is well near dead and we are fighting what has become a national government with over arching powers far beyond what the framers would have imagined. I haven’t given up the fight but I am starting to think we are witnessing a sea change in the country and the beginning of a post-American world.

May 11, 2009 - 6:35 pm 95. Banned by Huffpo:

“The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.”

Which is where we are now.

The upside is, the good guys have all the guns.

May 11, 2009 - 6:53 pm 96. michael Reynolds:

Karen:

sitting home waiting for a handout

Who exactly do you mean? Welfare is almost extinct. Which leaves unemployment or social security. So what are you talking about? Details, please, and not just the usual rant. Do you mean people collecting social security? Do you mean disability? Do you mean unemployment insurance?

What are you talking about oh great economic sage?

May 11, 2009 - 7:21 pm 97. Bill:

Mikey R:

“In other words: 1) You know zip about history. 2) You regurgitate the usual wingnut crapola and pretend it is original to. 3) The facts bear out no part of your paranoid vision. 4) You will have no interest in changing your opinion to conform with the facts. In fact you will be, like all of your ilk, utterly indifferent to facts.”

You’re not just an ignorant moron, but a smug, nasty, insulting ignorant moron. In other words, par for the lefty course: arrogant ignorance.

Sorry twit, it’s you who know zero history: and if you did you would know that control-without-overt-nationalization is the name of the game.

But then, you lefties have been making up “facts” for so long you wouldn’t know what to do with a real one.

BTW, doesn’t MIchelle remind you of Eva Peron? Except Evita actually had a real job for a while.

May 11, 2009 - 7:55 pm 98. scott:

Secession. Its the only way. We can always put the country back together again at a later date after the progressives have progressed fully into oblivion.

May 11, 2009 - 8:13 pm 99. venividivici:

Collectivism is a bunch of zeros banding together and thinking they add up to something.

I think there’s going to be a huge bull market in encryption software that can hide money beyond the reach of the tax man, recent moves to clamp down on tax havens notwithstanding. Switzerland is moving to cyberspace. Gonna be a lot of rich people making $249,999 dollars a year. You can’t tax what you don’t know exists.

It’s amazingly contradictory that “progressivism” is so fantastic, but isn’t self-funding. Why is that?

May 11, 2009 - 8:14 pm 100. fred:

“The upside is, the good guys have all the guns.”

by Banned by Huffpo @95

But it’s likely we are going to be put in the position that the New Englanders were when Gen. Thomas Gage was sent to Boston in 1773 to disarm the population and seize the stores of powder and shot. We are going to have to hide our weapons and ammo for awhile. Gage faced an impossible task, and he knew it. Obonga and the Communists face a much more impossible task, because a lot of law enforcement and most of the military is not going to go along with the blackout marker being used to the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The Communists are going to have to rely on small numbers of the military and perhaps the urban gangs to do this dirty task of trying to disarm us. And when that happens, the death knell of the collectivists will be upon us. Not only will their ideology be dead, but they themselves will be facing annihilation.

May 11, 2009 - 8:19 pm 101. Jim Baker:

Master of Puppets,
You have posted on this and many other threads on this site for several months now, and I have yet to read anything but diatribes against whoever you have a disagreement with. It is time to get in the game and tell people what YOU believe and why YOU believe it and show some guts. And don’t get out your damned thesaurus and try to weave verbiage you don’t even understand into your opinions.
I believe the thesis of this article was that the collectivist agenda will expose itself as being impotent in the solving of real problems and that the conservative agenda will be restored to power once the people discover the damage done to their freedoms. You disagree with that thesis and that is all right, but the purveyor of this idea does not qualify as ignorant just because you disagree.

May 11, 2009 - 8:37 pm 102. venividivici:

And when that happens, the death knell of the collectivists will be upon us. Not only will their ideology be dead, but they themselves will be facing annihilation.

As long as they die collectively, I guess they’ll be happy. Works for me.

May 11, 2009 - 8:46 pm 103. James:

PASTOR OF MUPPETS: Define “progressive”! Go ahead, define it! It’s the same old sorry, tired, anti-anti-communist line of thought. Do you believe in “gay marriage”, because we should all enjoy equaly liberty? Do you believe people should be permitted to buy and trade marijuana without fear of jail? Very “progressive” ideas, I’d say! All based upon respect of the individual’s choice, right? Freedom to have abortions, freedom to unionize, freedom to say whatever the heck you wish, freedom from government intrusion into your telephone calls (i.e., Bush’s so-called “domestic” wire-tapping program). Very “progressive” stuff indeed. So why, tell me, are soooo manny “progressives”, who are purportedly in the corner of liberty, desparate to snatch more income from the “rich”, so eager to impose a singular health care system on everyone, so dedicated to the idea of “economic justice” and wealth re-distribution, so against the idea of private firearm ownership? You and your ilk are phonies! You speak with a pitch of phony intellectualism, citing various articles you deem worthy to support your dead ideas, mocking those who disagree with you. Your arguments are nonsense, hollow with terms like “progressive”. What a useful idiot you are to those who wish to rob from us all!

May 11, 2009 - 8:47 pm 104. Derek:

@ comment 36, Bilgeman:

“It doesn’t. Look at the numbers. An increasingly long-lived population of retirees and a decreasing birth-rate, coupled with the offshoring of high-paying jobs…do the math.”

And it’s only taken what 70 years for you to get to the point where you can make the calculation that 30 years from now we’ll have to get rid of social security (or just raise the retirement age and milk it for a few more decades).

“It doesn’t. If it worked, why would we even entertain the idea of the need to reform health-care?”

We’ve been reforming medicare by expanding the prescription drug plan, expanding coverage of children, a further planned expansion of everyone and a public plan. That’s not steps away from collectivism

See, that’s my problem with this article. It’s nothing more than ideological masturbation. A refusal to acknowledge the political success of an opposite idea simply because you think your idea is the only truth. The further the right sinks into this sense of self righteousness, this content to lose elections because they are sure one day progressive policies will prove to be a sham is the further into the wilderness the right gets.

May 11, 2009 - 9:03 pm 105. michael Reynolds:

Bill:

Thanks for confirming my suspicions about you. You’ve never read a history book in your life. In fact you may never have a read a book of any kind.

Once again: why is Obama at 70% and the GOP is at 20%? Look in the mirror.

May 11, 2009 - 9:23 pm 106. Moogie:

#80 D-wah: I’m glad you bit and that you appreciated the clip! I’ve posted the link to that clip numerous times. It’s gratifying to know that someone actually took the time to watch it.

What I wouldn’t give for the reasoned voice of a Milton Friedman today.

May 11, 2009 - 9:28 pm 107. Benson:

Moggie 85 I just watched the video with Friedman.
I’ve never seen anything that explained so plainly why we are headed towards collectivism and how difficult it is to avoid and how it can be avoided. The man is a genius. Thanks for the link.

May 11, 2009 - 10:24 pm 108. TheMightyMonarch:

“Welfare is almost extinct.”

The $75 trillion in unfunded Social Security and Medicare obligations would beg to differ. The Baby Boomers are retiring and means testing of Social Security won’t be far behind. We’re just getting started with welfare.

May 11, 2009 - 10:53 pm 109. typos_R_us:

There is no need for conservatives to do anything. Like the Containment strategy of Secretary of State Acheson, all we have to do is wait them out. The Usurper’s Utopia is built on sand and the tide is coming in. All conservatives have to do is hole up and wait it out. Lots of pain and misery to live thru, but if you are smart about it, things won’t get that bad, at least not in the red states.

May 11, 2009 - 11:00 pm 110. Bilgeman:

#104 Derek:
“And it’s only taken what 70 years for you to get to the point where you can make the calculation that 30 years from now we’ll have to get rid of social security (or just raise the retirement age and milk it for a few more decades).”

There were people who had pegged it correctly for the Ponzi scheme that it is right from its’ inception, and there have been voices all along, noramally quiet, accountant-style folks who have been saying that the books aren’t balancing all along.

So it’s taken only 50-70 years,(unlike you, I am not discounting the doubts that were raised back in the 1980s), for it to become fairly self-evident that the thing is a bust…strangely enough, that was about the amount of time it took for people in Russia to dope out that the OTHER collectivism, Marxism, was bunk, too.

Naturally, to “save the system”, you’re apparently endorsing what the collectivists have already done…raising the retirement age. But this wasn’t the retirement age that was advertised when I first started working, back then it was 65, and now, in my case it will be 67.
If you were a private business and pulled that, you’d go to jail for fraud.

But there again, it’s just so very inherent in a Leftist to “move the goalposts” and put on a face of hurt innocence when called out on his cheat.

And bear in mind that they raised the age for me, what’s stopping them from raising the age on you…say to 75…and then taxing as income your monthly benefit?

Time will tell.

“We’ve been reforming medicare by expanding the prescription drug plan, expanding coverage of children, a further planned expansion of everyone and a public plan. That’s not steps away from collectivism”

That’s not “reforming” that’s “expanding”. We are spending more money on health-care, but apparently w’re not spending ENOUGH to please some parties.

When you go on shopping spree, you can call it “reforming” all you like, but the bills still come due.

Let me point out what this “reform” has really done by noting the costs of two surgical procedures that have actually DECREASED.

Boob jobs and Laser vision correction surgery.

No HMO or PPO that I’m aware of will pay for a breast augmentation for cosmetic “self-esteem” purposes…there’s no “subsidy” to perform it, therefore, the people who are in that line of work, (and may I say here: God bless them!), have to charge what women can afford to pay.
That jiggles out to be about 5-7 grand depending where you get the “bolt-ons” installed.

Not too long ago, surgical vision correction was performed by only a handful of specialists and was stoopidly expensive. But todaym with coupons, you can get your headlights adjusted for as little as a grand per eye.
In large part that’s because every HMO/PPO’s vision care plan blows chunks, and has traditionally only covered eyeglasses.
Thanks to technology, and the fact that people need to pay for it out of their own pockets, the cost of this procedure is what folks can afford.

May 12, 2009 - 5:15 am 111. RandyChandler:

“The upside is, the good guys have all the guns.”

That’s only if the military mutinies. And I wouldn’t count on that.

May 12, 2009 - 5:47 am 112. venividivici:

111

Not really clear to me what you’re getting at, but the most likely scenario is that the military would split across ideological (well, actually more likely personal connections to people and places than to abstract ideology) lines in any sort of mass chaos. Some would mutiny and others would attempt to prop up the status quo.

May 12, 2009 - 6:48 am 113. RandyChandler:

I think an all-volunteer military might be slower to mutiny and more likely to follow orders they might disagree with.

May 12, 2009 - 7:56 am 114. Sheila:

Michael,
#63. I agree Obama is not Mussolini. However, you can’t deny that Obama, like Mussolini, holds up his nose a lot when he gives speeches.

May 12, 2009 - 9:01 am 115. Oldguy:

Anno Dom: 1623
“So they begane to thinke how they might raise as much corne as they could, and obtaine a better crope then they had done, that they might not still languish in miserie. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor… gave way that they should set corne every man for his owne perticular, and in that regard trust to them selves,”

William Bradford
“Of Plymouth Plantation”

May 12, 2009 - 10:55 am 116. Jim Baker:

begane, thinke, corne, obtaine, crope, miserie, owne, perticular, them selves. Well Oldguy, I guess that just about wraps things up. Sheesh!

May 12, 2009 - 12:02 pm 117. Tristan Yates:

Thank you very much for the comments – its a privilege to write for Pajamas. The article is optimistic agreed, but only because I do see the coming obstacles collectivism faces. (Bailouts, Obamacare, Social Security crunch.)

One other point – I put “collectivism” in the title and as a central idea for a reason. Use that word and define it. Force the people who don’t know it to learn it if they want to be a part of the debate. If someone says collectivism sounds like a good idea because everyone is working together, push. What decisions are you comfortable having the government make for you? Just economic decisions, just social decisions, or both? Do you believe the government will always act honestly and morally and free of corruption and influence? What happens if you trust the government to take care of your children’s education or health care and they don’t deliver? Has the government ever been able to effectively police and regulate itself, or even just control its spending?

Now you’re not going to convert anyone into a conservative or libertarian in one conversation, but just to have someone think about the purpose and limits of government for a minute is a significant victory. And remember, the ideas only have to spread to the independents – and somehow I think selling individualism to independents can’t be all that difficult.

May 12, 2009 - 1:54 pm 118. Derek:

@110. Bilgeman:

You miss my point. I’m not endorsing anything, simply pointing out the absolute failure conservativism has had in dismantling our biggest collectivist policies.

You mention objections being raised about Social Security in the 80’s… I discount them for the same reason I discount current objections: Social Security can be easily milked for decades just by minor changes. In the 80’s we got a tax increase and that pushed back the debate for another 20 years.

That’s my point, we’re talking about this mythical collapse of collectivism as though that will be vindication enough for conservatives.

May 12, 2009 - 3:19 pm 119. Roderick Reilly:

FWIW: While I don’t share the author’s optimism, there are two things analogous to his reasoning which may vindicate his point of view:

1) Communism collapsed after a decade or so of triumphalist advance following our loss of Vietnam. They became overextended, and fatally lacked the economic and organizational depth to survive that debacle.

2) Obama and the Democrats are overextending themselves, the government, and the American economy with the most reckless binge of government spending ever seen in the entire history of the world. To compound this audacious irresponsibility, they are doing it at a time when we are in a profound economic downturn. Social democracies like the one Democrats are trying to give us now have only survived as long as they have because they were built on a solid economic foundation that they then proceeded to squander. Remember that Western Europe (Obama’s model) started out as a Christian Democrat-dominated political system and built up an economic powerhouse before they became lazy and indulgent. They have been able to nurse social democracy along because of the American economic engine and our military might to prop them up. Who will prime America’s weakened engine? China? Get real.

Unfortunately, in order for collectivism to collapse, we will have to collapse with them. Be prepared for an impoverished post-collectivist world that will take decaddes to revitalize.

May 12, 2009 - 3:35 pm 120. fred:

Derek,

“Mythical collapse of collectivism…”

If we are heading towards some American version of a Euro-socialist template, then you have to take a hard look at the actual results of Euro-socialism. Stagnant economies that, even during good times, typically do not see unemployment rates below 8%. The State deciding who the winners are going to be in the marketplace and who the losers are going to be.

Roderick Reilly, following your comment, is correct to point out the formidable headwinds we will be facing because of how much government spending is going to be shoved on the U.S. taxpayer and foreign bond holders.

It’s obvious you were not around during the 1970’s era of stagflation.

Collectivism has never put in play a robust engine of economic growth. The history of the 20th century is littered with failed socialist experiments.

May 12, 2009 - 4:04 pm 121. Bilgeman:

#118 Derek:
“You miss my point. I’m not endorsing anything, simply pointing out the absolute failure conservativism has had in dismantling our biggest collectivist policies.”

Sure seemd like you were…from your #104:

“A refusal to acknowledge the political success of an opposite idea simply because you think your idea is the only truth. The further the right sinks into this sense of self righteousness, this content to lose elections because they are sure one day progressive policies will prove to be a sham is the further into the wilderness the right gets.”

Now the collectivists have undeniably scored political points with the various holes in the ground that they’ve been throwing our money into, but contrary to what you assert here, that:

“Social Security can be easily milked for decades just by minor changes. In the 80’s we got a tax increase and that pushed back the debate for another 20 years.”,

…it would appear that we are approaching, (if nor past), the point where there is a manifestly smaller pile of cash relative to the depth of the hole it’s going into.

And as entitlement spending gobbles up an ever-increasing share of our GDP, then it gets harder and harder to push for more of a “fix”…because to provide it, you start having to sell off and do without the things that REALLY hurt when they’re absent.

And so now the short-term political gains are to be made in cutting our big collectivist boondoggles…the pendulum stops for a millisecond, and then swings inexorably in the other direction. Because of the debt we faced before Obama and before Bush got their hands on the Depleted Uranium American Excess card, we were already doing without wealth that would have possibly paid dividends fo our society that none ofus will ever know…there are no reliable metrics to definitively describe what you might have had had you not bought what you did.

“That’s my point, we’re talking about this mythical collapse of collectivism as though that will be vindication enough for conservatives.”

And I guess that’s where we differ…you call the time when the credit card bills come due a mythical event. I see it coming quite clearly, and with foreboding rather than glee at being vindicated politically.

(I’m not getting any younger, either, y’know.)

The greatest disservice is that we are bequeathing to our children less of an America than we otherwise could have. Their horizons will be more limited and their options fewer when they take the reins.

The tragedy for them is that they might never realize how their birthright has been mortgaged, and for what.
It is to our shame that we must recognize how we have squandered the fruits of their labors, before they were ever born.

May 12, 2009 - 4:22 pm 122. myth buster:

What’s insane is that were Obama to be reelected (and perhaps even if he isn’t), Medicare will be insolvent before he leaves office, yet he wants to give us Medicare for all.

May 12, 2009 - 8:39 pm 123. Greenknight:

Dispite my bloging other places about the collectivists in power, the democrats do some things right and Republicans do somethings wrong. Saddly, our new President has been set up for failure. This is unless his plans were all along to take over the System and declare himself the head of a statist totalitarian regime. The collectivists are going to do everything they can as soon as they can to unlevel the playing field. Will it be enough to stay in power for them? As exibit A, I give you Rahm Emanuel and the GPS census now being carried out by ACORN ( Are they really involved to such a great degree?), etc. for jerrymandering the congressional districts before 2010. I live in Massachusetts, and the GOP is a joke here and we live in a one party system, but that is no matter. I suggest everyone get out and campaign for your favorite conservative candidate next election. I am a registed independent, yet last election, I contributed, campaigned and voted for John McCain. If you want to curtail the Liberal Collectivists Moobattery, then you must do the same. Pray of President Obama and ask God to guide him to do the right thing for all Americans. I think he may be a decent man at heart, but he just grew up saturated by Marxism.

May 12, 2009 - 9:44 pm 124. michael Reynolds:

#114
Sheila:
Plus they were both basically good-looking men. But I don’t think Mussolini could sink a three pointer.

May 12, 2009 - 10:12 pm 125. sbourg55:

Very good. Yes, Obama/Pelosi are in a difficult situation………but the MSM will try to pull them through no matter what. Let’s just hope that the economy tanking for another 8 months will dampen Obama’s efforts to get more and more dangerous “reform” for our economy. “Health-care for all” would be another huge nail in the coffin for our economy’s chances for revitalization. Unfortunately, Obama wants to grow govt more than he wants to grow the private sector (which supports govt). What a dangerous semi-socialist idealogue he is!

May 13, 2009 - 4:10 am 126. tanstaafl:

In each of these (collectivist) varieties, autocrats make and enforce their judgments in the name of the greater good. “Every collectivist revolution rides in on a Trojan horse of emergency.” …(this) president (”only the federal government can fix the crisis”) has to rely on the economic emergency for his march to collectivism.

I’ve never known of an advancer of collectivism (from the Soviets to any in America’s current crowd of Progressives) who themselves lived the ideology they espouse. Collectivism is never an ideal met or lived by its proponents, but, simply and merely, a device for asserting power and control over “the masses”. It is the ultimate “do as I say, not as I do” statement.

The real target of collectivism is individual freedom and liberty.

May 13, 2009 - 9:07 am 127. Oakley:

“The financial crisis is now understood as a symptom of a larger problem of government ineptitude and outright corruption.”

This quote says it all…, but really, how many Americans are paying attention to what is going on? It seems to me the ones who voted for “THE ONE” are still totally enamored with him (including the lapdog press).

May 13, 2009 - 6:26 pm 128. Dave Goin:

A Nobel Peace Prize is a surefire sign that the winner is a leftist or and idiot, probably both.

May 13, 2009 - 6:58 pm 129. WillDoMathForFood:

The author is sort of correct in the long run – the administration’s policies just can’t work indefinitely, after all – but that doesn’t mean that either (1) America can be saved or (2) that collectivism will ever really die. As the author points out, it should have been self-evident to even the most brain-dead collectivist after the fall of the Soviet Union that collectivism’s endpoint is bankruptcy, and yet here they are – back stronger than ever, within living memory of the USSR’s collapse. You just can’t tell some people that there isn’t a Santa Claus. And as the author also points out, America is on the path to an horrific economic crash: and that’s what it will take to PROVE, even for a short time, that Santa is an illusion. The alternative is to try to reverse all of Obama’s promises, and since he has promised the world to 51% of the electorate, the other 49% are going to be perceived inevitably as Scrooges taking away entitlements. I think we’re hosed. But I hope I’m wrong, and the author is right, and the endgame is not catastrophe.

May 13, 2009 - 7:19 pm 130. G Alston:

#36 bilgeman — #26 Derek:
“You might as well be in 1934 saying social security won’t work,”

It doesn’t. Look at the numbers. An increasingly long-lived population of retirees and a decreasing birth-rate, coupled with the offshoring of high-paying jobs…do the math.

Yes… in the universe where there is no such thing as a free market to invest in, you would be right. If I can figure out how to have enough money to retire on via investments, I’m sure the government could employ someone that can do likewise.

#33 — I hope he is right, but again, when 50% of the American people pay less than 4% of the income tax burden of the nation you are preparing the road to serfdom, first, for the other 50%, and eventually for all.

That 50/50 split is interesting given that statistically half of us are below average. Somebody has to flip the burgers and pump the gas.

One could argue that ethically the upper half are obligated to carry a bigger load, given that we’re our brothers keepers: society is only as good as the lowest common denominator. At one time the US was able to hide the IQ disparity with manufacturing jobs. Since the US isn’t in the mfg business any more, there aren’t these types of jobs to use to prop up the lower half. So for our history the upper half has in fact carried a bigger load; it wasn’t necessarily in the form of taxes, but providing jobs.

This wasn’t called collectivism when it was done in the form of jobs, so it’s not likely collectivism now, either.

May 13, 2009 - 11:02 pm 131. geoffgo:

The “frog-in-the-pot” analogy fails to convey the pace of the collectivist advance. Unless we realize it’s already 200 degrees and act, we’ll have no further chances to save the nation. Let’s instead use that most American analogy: baseball.

STRIKE ONE

On this past April 15th, a vast majority of the producing class “voluntarily” paid their taxes at the proscribed rates. Ergo, the theft of the means of production continues unabated; in fact accelerates to mind-boggling levels. IE, we’re funding the political class to enslave US ever faster, while threatening the perps with ONLY a full-boat retirement (pension, healthcare and protection) should we be fortunate enough to unseat them. Wow, that really scares’em.

How about trials as the goal? If this “theft” isn’t worthy of criminal prosecution (with at a minimum loss of all benefits for every legislature that voted FOR the Stimulus without reading it, and long jail terms for the leaders), then nothing ever will be. I vote for refurbishing Gitmo to accommodate 1,000 of these thieves, and electing Sheriff Joe to run it. Pink jumpsuits and baloney sandwiches. No TV. But, they would be provided with the Koran, the Bible and the Constitution for their idle time reading.

STRIKE TWO

Scope. Now the gov’t at all levels is equipped with laws, regulations and the sanctioned use-of-force, plus the fully-committed support of mass media and absolute control over the means of communication. With almost half the voting population (alive and dead) relying on the gov’t teet? It’s about all US frogs being boiled simultaneously.

Congress enacted 60,000 new laws last year, and is on schedule to pass 62,000+ new laws this year. About what? Yet each restricts individual freedom, to benefit some at the expense of all US citizens. This lawmaking machine is the tool of tyranny and the enabler of political corruption. Soon the producing class will be more broke, more threatened, more factionalized and increasingly demoralized. Also of course, we have external enemies.

STRIKE THREE

Awaiting news of Tea Parties in this struggle to save our Republic. More people showed up for the 0ne’s Coronation in WDC, than we were able to muster in 50 states; so I guess we’ll just keep on being too busy working and paying taxes, and unserious about the suicidal consequences of remaining civil.

May 14, 2009 - 7:27 am 132. Ed Wallis:

G. Alston #130 –

Sorry, but you’re wrong on your last point (ethically obliged, etc etc…):

http://theconservativepost.com/WordPress/?p=322

May 14, 2009 - 10:16 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: