Why are many thoughtful people, including many Democrats, so uneasy about the prospect of an Obama presidency? Please don’t tell me it’s because of “racism.” The race card, in so far as it operates in this election, will operate mostly in favor of Obama (consider, for starters, the fact that he is expected to get in excess of 90 percent of the black vote–a percentage many dictators campaigning in a single-party state would be happy with). It’s not because of Obama’s alleged “elitism,” either, though Obama’s contempt for the “bitter” people “who cling to guns and religion” gets us to the right neighborhood.
William McGurn, in a brief but splendid article in The Wall Street Journal yesterday, helps us to understand the way that moralism plays out in Obama’s policy prescriptions. The key term, McGurn notes, is “fairness,” a loaded word that Obama (like many liberals) deploys as a moral bludgeon. Consider the issue of taxes. At Saddleback Church in Southern California the other day, one of the issues Rick Warren asked McCain and Obama about was taxes. “Define rich,” he asked. “I mean give me a number. Is it $50,000, $100,000, $200,000? Everybody keeps talking about who we’re going to tax. How can you define that?” Some on the Left have pilloried McCain for saying that he considered an income of $5 million a year “rich,” but the gravamen of McCain’s response, as McGurn points out, came in his elaboration: “I don’t want to take any money from the rich. I want everybody to get rich.”
How different was Obama’s response. What he was looking for, he said, was “a sense of balance, and fairness in our tax code. It is time for folks like me who make more than $250,000 to pay our fair share.”
“Our fair share.” That is the Obama refrain. “[W]e will save Social Security for future generations by asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share.” It’s a small step from the invocation of “our fair share” to Obama’s call for a tax on “the windfall profits of oil companies,” a tax increase on capitals gains, elimination of the tax on Social Security tax, etc., etc.
The crucial point here is that what Obama is interested in is not increasing but in promulgating redistributionist policies that make it harder for people to prosper economically. McGurn recalls Obama’s response to ABC’s Charlie Gibson when Gibson observed that rasing taxes led to decreased revenues: “Well, Charlie,” Obama replied, “what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.”
“For purposes of fairness”: that means, “for purposes of economic egalitarianism.” McGurn comments:
[I]t doesn’t really matter whether a tax increase actually brings in more revenue. It’s not about robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Robbing from the rich will do, especially if it’s done in the name of fairness.
Now there are good reasons Mr. Obama is not likely to pursue the revenue side of the fairness question. As this newspaper noted in a recent editorial, the latest data from the Internal Revenue Service does not show to Mr. Obama’s advantage. As we come to the end of the Bush administration, the top 1% of American taxpayers already pay 40% of all income taxes — the highest level in 40 years. The top 10% of income earners pay 71% of the taxes.
The bottom line is that when Obama invokes “fairness,” he wants us to feel guilty about economic success. This is the secret of his appeal to to socialistically inclined. It is also the reason why the rest of us are so uneasy about the prospect of an Obama administration.
It has long been recognized that liberalism and feelings of guilt go together as predictably as tea and crumpets. In the title essay of his remarkable book The Chatham House Version, Elie Kedourie criticizes the anti-Western bias of Arnold Toynbee’s multi-volume A Study of History. “In my eyes,” Toynbee wrote in his concluding volume, “the west is a perpetual aggressor.” Kedourie points out that behind Toynbee’s impressive erudition (”the far-fetched analogies, the obscure references, the succession of latinate, polysyllabic words”) one discerns “the shrill and clamant voice of English radicalism, thrilling with self-accusatory and joyful lamentation. Nostra culpa, nostra maxima culpa: we have invaded, we have conquered, we have dominated, we have exploited.”
One finds the same emotional compact among socialistically-inclined liberals in this country: a conviction of superior virtue punctuated by declarations of unappeasable guilt. Whose guilt? Ours–or, to be more precise–yours: all you who have not yet fully acknowledged the miserable condition of Western society, especially the more affluent purlieus of Western society, and above all those parts of affluent Western society that happen to be white, male, and Christian.
This phenomenon, though long recognized, was without a proper name until James Piereson, writing in The Weekly Standard a few years ago, coined the perfect epithet: “punitive liberalism.” In this, as in so much else, Obama hearkens back to the radical policies of an earlier era. “From the time of John Kennedy’s assassination in 1963 to Jimmy Carter’s election in 1976,” Piereson writes,
the Democratic party was gradually taken over by a bizarre doctrine that might be called Punitive Liberalism. According to this doctrine, America had been responsible for numerous crimes and misdeeds through its history for which it deserved punishment and chastisement. White Americans had enslaved blacks and committed genocide against Native Americans. They had oppressed women and tyrannized minority groups, such as the Japanese who had been interned in camps during World War II. They had been harsh and unfeeling toward the poor. By our greed, we had despoiled the environment and were consuming a disproportionate share of the world’s wealth and resources. We had coddled dictators abroad and violated human rights out of our irrational fear of communism.
Piereson’s great insight is to stress the punitive, the chastising side of this orgy of guilt. Liberals like Obama come telling us they are making a better world; they omit to mention that what they mean by “a better world” is a world that is distinctly worse for certain groups, in particular groups that liberals decided had hitherto been unfairly privileged. “The punitive aspects of this doctrine,” Piereson writes,
were made especially plain in debates over the liberals’ favored policies. If one asked whether it was really fair to impose employment quotas for women and minorities, one often heard the answer, “White men imposed quotas on us, and now we’re going to do the same to them!” Was busing of school children really an effective means of improving educational opportunities for blacks? A parallel answer was often given: “Whites bused blacks to enforce segregation, and now they deserve to get a taste of their own medicine!” Do we really strengthen our own security by undercutting allied governments in the name of human rights, particularly when they are replaced by openly hostile regimes (as in Iran and Nicaragua)? “This”–the answer was–”is the price we have to pay for coddling dictators.” And so it went. Whenever the arguments were pressed, one discovered a punitive motive behind most of their policies.
It was, as Piereson notes, one of Ronald Reagan’s great achievements to overcome, at least temporarily, the emotional mandate of punitive liberalism. Piereson quotes from Reagan’s speech at the Republican Convention of 1980: “My fellow citizens,” Reagan said, “I utterly reject that view. The American people, the most generous on earth, who created the highest standard of living, are not going to accept the notion that we can only make a better world for others by moving backwards ourselves.” What a breath of fresh air, especially after four years of Jimmy “Mr. Malaise” Carter!
The question that confronts us now is what reservoirs of confidence we still can draw upon. Did Reagan really “vanquish” punitive liberalism, or did he merely rebuff it momentarily? The extraordinary, uncritical acclamation accorded to Obama by the Left suggests that “we have scotched the snake, not killed it.” But at least now we know what we are fighting. Punitive Liberalism is alive and well in the Democratic Party, at The New York Times, in our courts and universities. It would be nice if another Ronald Reagan were to appear and remind us that we cannot move forward by moving backwards. Perhaps John McCain is that person. Although I do not endorse all of his policies, I admire his forthrightness. In any event, I hope that people will begin calling Obama’s “fairness doctrine” by its real name: it’s not fairness, but punitive liberalism. The first step towards freedom is calling things by their real names. With the phrase “Punitive Liberalism,” we at last have a truthful name for the toxic doctrine that would have us believe success is a form of failure.
PJM Home
The New Criterion
The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art
Lives of the Mind: The Use and Abuse of Intelligence from Hegel to Wodehouse
Art’s Prospect: The Challenge of Tradition in an Age of Celebrity
Experiments Against Reality: The Fate of Culture in the Postmodern Age
Tenured Radicals, NEW, EXPANDED EDITION FALL 2008! How Politics has Corrupted our Higher Education
Counterpoints: 25 Years of The New Criterion on Culture and the Arts
The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America
Against the Idols of the Age
Lengthened Shadows: America and Its Institutions in the Twenty-First Century
The Survival of Culture: Permanent Values in a Virtual Age
Physics and Politics, by Walter Bagehot, edited with an
Introduction by Roger Kimball
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
75 Comments
1. anon:trying to manipulate the word “fairness” into “Punitive Liberalism” (where do you get this shit from?) doesn’t change the meaning of the word “fairness”
It looks to me like the writer of this article is wealthy and selfish giving nothing back to the same America then gave him/her so much.
Enjoy your depression corrupt America
Aug 19, 2008 - 8:07 am 2. srlucado:Very well said.
I picture liberals aboard a sinking ship – they’d prefer that everyone drown rather than save half.
After all, that’s “fair” to everybody, right?
Another supposition of theirs is that success is selfish. What I’ve seen in life is quite the opposite.
Those who truly get ahead (not just materially, but morally) know that life isn’t a zero-sum game. As they say, don’t offer someone a bigger piece of the pie, increase the size of the pie.
Your success does not detract from my ability to succeed; cooperation increases the odds of us both succeeding – unless someone from Government steps in and decides that they know better.
In that case, everybody loses. But hey, at least that’s *fair*.
Scott
Aug 19, 2008 - 10:22 am 3. David Thomson:The bizarre adulation of Mahatma Gandhi some seventy years ago should have been the wake up call. He was downright weird and deserved to be marginalized. And yet, guilt tripped white Westerners made fools of themselves over him. I am convinced that Gandhi’s radicalism resulted in the deaths of well over a million people. Martin Luther King also exploited white guilt. He literally asserted that his own country was conducting a racist war on the Vietnamese. Barack Obama is simply another guilt tripper. This shallow and poorly read individual would not be taken seriously if he were a white man. Obama possesses the slimmest resume of any major presidential candidate in perhaps the last one hundred years. John F. Kennedy, comparatively speaking, was a grizzled political veteran.
Aug 19, 2008 - 11:27 am 4. Trey:David, I disagree with your assessment of Gandhi and Dr. King. I agree with your points about Senator Obama.
Roger, the article was great, thanks for writing it and educating me. You wrote: “The bottom line is that when Obama invokes “fairness,” he wants us to feel guilty about economic success. This is the secret of his appeal to to socialistically inclined.” We agree, but I think Obama has bathed in the kool aid and believes this himself. From your article, I wonder if you think that he is not inclined toward punitive liberalism himself, but is just adopting the language to meet his needs. I tend to think he drips of the cool aid.
Trey
Aug 19, 2008 - 11:40 am 5. Brian G.:Thr guy above is right about Gandhi but dead wrong about MLK.
Obama is a one-world Socialist. Anyone who doesn’t see that is either dishonest with themselves or in complete denial.
Aug 19, 2008 - 11:47 am 6. Mike_K:It’s interesting to note that Gandhi, while denying his wife “western medicine” and allowing her to die, chose to have his appendix out and took the medicine that was necessary for his own welfare. Thus, the doctrine of fairness must be amended to ensure that the punitive liberal gets his share.
Aug 19, 2008 - 11:49 am 7. tim maguire:I believe that sort of liberalism is being defeated, slowly. It exists primarily among a certain age group that protested Vietnam and went to Woodstock. It just happens that it is now peaking in its influence despite the advancing sclerosis–it is the right age for tenured professors, senior politicians, etc. The power age. But I don’t see it much among the young–yes, the young, because they are inexperienced and stupid, find it seductive, but they don’t really believe it, not in any deep or abiding way.
This form of liberalism is fading because it is getting older, but it will not die out until the 60’s generation dies out. Since it is primarily the Vietnam generation, perhaps 2008 is its Tet.
Aug 19, 2008 - 11:51 am 8. Pajamas Media » Obama’s Punitive Liberalism:[...] the entire post here [...]
Aug 19, 2008 - 12:08 pm 9. Andrew:I live in one of the most elitist areas with some of the loudest proclaimers of punitive liberalism in VA. A lawyer friend of mine says he is regularly disgusted at how those who are the loudest are usually wealthy and do everything they can within legal limits to avoid paying their “fair” share of taxes. Isn’t it interesting that the wealthy liberals take advantage of their wealth by employing accounts and lawyers to avoid the very thing they think everyone else should do. I say put up or shut up and leave the rest of us alone. (I’m not saying conservatives don’t do this but isn’t it slightly hypocritical of those who make the most noise?)
Aug 19, 2008 - 12:10 pm 10. David Thomson:“I believe that sort of liberalism is being defeated, slowly.”
This is why it is imperative to defeat Barack Obama on Election Day. A complete reversal will occur if he takes office. The phenomenon of white guilt will dramatically worsen. God help our country if Obama is our next president. The resulting destruction will be mind boggling.
Aug 19, 2008 - 12:15 pm 11. M,W. Kaul:Finally! A meme for conservative to throw around with abandon….
Aug 19, 2008 - 12:22 pm 12. JAXHAWK:i WOULD NOT CALL THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM THAT OBAMA IS ADVOCATING, PUNITIVE LIBERALISM. What he is advocating is blatant punitive socialism!!!
Aug 19, 2008 - 12:38 pm 13. leishman:What???? You left out anthropogenic global warming???? You’re quite right about Lefties’ perpetual tendency to attempt to induce guilt. Reagan’s beautiful response was a powerful antidote to such an attempt. The eco-lefties’ counter to this was/is to allege that, no, there’s not “enough” for everyone to improve his life–Gaia won’t allow it. At least with AGW, my response is, “Then what do you consider to be the ideal temperature of the earth, and, if we could control the temperature (a dubious assumption), to whose hand do you entrust the thermostat?”
Aug 19, 2008 - 12:41 pm 14. Boca Condo King:Three Points.
1. Great Article, very incitefull.
2. When Confronted with this sort of thinking, I have had great fun brining up all the sins of other civilizations (of which my debate partner is usally ignorant) and watching them wiggle. IE, USA is unfair to Mexian Illegals, but the USA allows 1.5 million people per year to be citizens while Mexico allows only 3000. Etc….
3. If Obama is elected, will it wipe out the guilt?
Aug 19, 2008 - 12:52 pm 15. Greg:Uh guys, punitive liberalism is a nice term and it makes alot of sense when you think about the tradition of the Religious Left, but Obama’s a Marxist.
Aug 19, 2008 - 12:56 pm 16. Mitydk:Jax: Socialism=Liberalism=Progressivism=Communism=Fascism.
All are bastard offspring of the most evil political system ever thought up, Marxism, where all people are forced to become equally miserable.
(Except THE ONE and his overlords.. they are MORE equal). Obama is a Marxist, read his book, Dreams of my father, you will see.
Aug 19, 2008 - 12:58 pm 17. P G Schran:Your comments on “fairness” echo many of my own thoughts on the subject.
Whenever I hear the term “fair” used by the left I cringe, partly because I see it as a word that is too easily misused, or perhaps not properly defined when it is used.
You see, “fair” has (at least) two meanings: 1) pleasing, and 2) just. I hear so many people use “fair” when they should use “pleasing.” Then it becomes confused with “just.” But it is not the same thing as just. So many people now equate these meanings – hence the term “social justice.” Look at many of the policies promoted as “social justice” (such as excessive taxation), and you find it is really “socially pleasing” to those who promote them. But are these policies really “just?” Or do they merely make the promoters feel pleased to oppress the targeted group?
On a similar vein, the term “justice” is also confused with “revenge.” Again, these are not the same thing. The examples you offer are an excellent example of this confusion. If a group is oppressed, it is not justice to simply impose that oppression on the other side – that’s revenge. Elimination of the oppressive behavior entirely would be justice. (This is exactly one of the reasons our justice system does not allow the victims of crime to determine sentences – the victims are allowed to speak, but not decide. This is designed to prevent justice from becoming revenge.)
Of course, the topic of why a significant part of our population wants to punish itself for its own success is another interesting, but long, discussion…
Aug 19, 2008 - 1:07 pm 18. Cato:Tim, if this election is punitive liberalism’s Tet, then that means they will win in the end. Remember, we lost that war, and Vietnam is Communist to this day.
I happen to believe that this attitude will never be entirely vanquished. If anything, it is growing. It’s true that the Vietnam generation who now dominate our major institutions — education, the media, government, Hollywood, even (increasingly) in corporations — is peaking in influence and will eventually die out. But they are very assiduously propagating their beliefs to future generations. Talk to any group of college students today and you will see what I mean.
Aug 19, 2008 - 1:11 pm 19. Roy Lofquist:Dear Roger,
I’m old enough to remember the gold stars in the windows. It’s not the time to debate any policy except who do you want to answer the phone when it’s tits up.
Regards,
Aug 19, 2008 - 1:12 pm 20. Roderick Reilly:Roy
I have this suspicion that an Obama administration will be, in part, about retribution. The outrageous aspect of this need for retribution is that the intent is to punish the American majority for the transgressions of past generations.
The desire for retribution will come from two schools of thought: African-American radical activism, and its parent ideology, the American Left. It will be a minority viewpoint imposing itself on the American people. All these folks who gather behind Obama’s shadow (and who try to stay invisible for the moment) do not like most of us, and, try as they might, the Obamas themselves keep betraying hints that they feel the same way.
Retributionist politics is also invariably linked to even higher levels of corruption than we are currently seeing among our governing elite. The Federal government may end up being run — under an Obama administration — in a similar manner as the Washington, DC and Detroit city governments.
The extra revenues intended to be raised from punishing the “rich” may never make it to the Social Security coffers being used an one excuse for acquiring additional money. As it is, Congress has been raiding Social Security to cover general spending for an entire generation. It will only get worse with a “retributionist” mentality in charge of the Treasury.
May I remind commenters here that Obama has made disturbing references to some “non-military” national security force, or service, or whatnot. Since he misspeaks with almost Roseanne Barr-like incoherence when not teleprompting, he may have just been referring to his intent to vastly expand America’s “volunteer” services like Americorps and the Peace Corps. In any case, this will add tens of billions of dollars to the federal budget all by themselves, as well as create a huge body of young people loyal to the State, but not the Nation.
Aug 19, 2008 - 1:20 pm 21. gerald berke:I’m sure the 40% of taxes paid by the wealthiest 1% fails to reflect that the top 1% have a whole lot more.
Aug 19, 2008 - 1:42 pm 22. Roderick Reilly:As to punishment for past deeds: hardly needed, but correction certain was needed, for women, for blacks, and this county is so much the better.
Ronald R was a pleasure to listen to: his assumption that we would have to go backwards or indeed, that in all matters we were indeed going forward. Time goes forward, the rest requires some special work and planning.
But I find myself informed by the word “fairness”… I don’t think I like that word much either. We take more from the wealthy because they have the money. Is it fair? And if they don’t want to give it all, is it unfair. And when you are rich and you give a ton in taxes, well, I might want to find a better word than “fair”… something closer to “thanks”
But gee, do you really like the Bush economy better than the Clinton economy? Of course you like the money that flows from the White House, but that’s not the economy… that’s a payoff.
“”"”"But they are very assiduously propagating their beliefs to future generations. Talk to any group of college students today and you will see what I mean.”"”"”
Bingo. Obama is one of their acolytes. And, with the huge expansion of “national service” initiatives, leftists will create whole new division-sized units of enthusiastic “State Servants.”
I do want to add, though, that I’m not expecting a Hugo Chavez-like transformation under Obama, but an accelleration of a trend that has been slowed but not stopped over the last two decades.
Aug 19, 2008 - 1:58 pm 23. Roderick Reilly:Oh, incidentally, how many of you are aware of, or paying attention to the Global Poverty Act (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56405).
Otherwise, Google “Global Poverty Act” for other articles.
Obama, as I understand it, was the sponsor of this measure which has not yet passed on the Senate floor, but has made it out of committee. The gist of it is: it’s an attempt to appropriate .07% of America’s annual GDP — which at current levels would amount to $100 billion a year — for a fund to help alleviate/end world poverty.
I’m really disturbed that this is isn’t getting more play, even in the “rightosphere.” This is a staggering sum of money, and we all know that most of it will never get past the presidential palaces of the brutal kleptocrats who run most of the intended recipient countries. In addition to ending up in Swiss bank accounts, a lot of this money will be used to increase the size of personal militias and security forces, and to bribe favored populations within the recipient countries in return for votes, etc.
As it is, Americans already give $73 billion a year as “foreign aid.” $10 billion is actual foreign aid, an additional $13 billion from the federal government is de-facto foreign aid, and $50 billion is from private and philanthropic donations.
The Global Poverty Act tax is also intended to punish our country for being successful. No one will thank us for it, since they will consider it their due.
Aug 19, 2008 - 2:10 pm 24. Paul M Hupf:You can give Senator Obama’s positions on taxes a variety of names. But one man, Karl Marx, is the father of Barack Obama’s various pronouncements as to what he, Barack Obama, calls his plan for the future. The plan is undisguised Marxism: redistribute the wealth of this country; take away incentive. It hasn’t worked anywhere before, other than to produce misery for most, repression of individual rights and a privileged polical class. If installed here the result will be no different.
Aug 19, 2008 - 2:11 pm 25. peter jackson:Whether they realize it or not, the economic sins the punitives seek to punish are deduced based on Marxian premises of capitalism where the very existence of wealth is prima facie evidence of exploitation as suggested by the theory of surplus value. The fact that the left’s moral worldview has lost it’s moorings from its Marxist underpinnings matters little, because Marx merely provided a modern justification for what is a historically a hunter-gatherer worldview with a system of ethics based upon wealth being something merely found and had, not something that is produced by risk and investment as it is now.
I don’t see the punitive neo-puritan mentality going anywhere. “Scientific socialism” may now be an oxymoron, but it’s political boot print on the psyche of our civilization is culturally perpetuated.
yours/
Aug 19, 2008 - 2:11 pm 26. Paul:peter
David Thomson: I’ve always wondered why India which seems to woship Ghandi was so quick to build nuclear weapons triggering Pakistan to do the same.
Democrats rail against slavery but their party supported it and Jim Crow laws. The first blacks in Congres were GOP Republicans until the KKK (Senator Byrd’s old group) forcibly ended that experience.
The Democrats rail against Gitmo but FDR and Earl Warren locked up Japanese-Americans into concentration camps where several were gunned down during minor protests.
The Democrats hate war but got us into WWII, Korea and Viet Nam and were the first to use nuclear weapons. So if anything their’s is a self hatred thing going on within them and whereby they project their guilt/hatred on to all Americans.
Aug 19, 2008 - 2:21 pm 27. LarryD:Andrew hits an important point. The elite’s “ideology”, what ever it’s called, is in fact self serving. It’s designed to keep them on top and everyone else down. Despite what the packaging says.
Aug 19, 2008 - 2:23 pm 28. “Punitive Liberalism” | The Sundries Shack:[...] Here’s an interesting article by Roger Kimball on a core tenet of progressive thought – “fairness”. I don’t have a lot to add here since he’s covered the ground pretty well. [...]
Aug 19, 2008 - 2:32 pm 29. Javelin:Same old same old stuff, rehashed and re-heated but we’ve heard this a thousand times before. Maybe all the finger pointers like Mr. Kimball should take some time to examine their motives
Aug 19, 2008 - 2:51 pm 30. DavidN:Paul,
My understanding is that these days, Gandhi isn’t revered in India. He’s more admired as a well-meaning saint who was somewhat out of touch with reality, and didn’t understand the modern world. This allows them to admire him while leaving behind those parts of his vision which the country finds inconvenient. As for Obama being a Socialist, I have to confess I don’t really believe it, at least not in the conscious sense. I think he’s more along the lines of a conventional New Deal Democrat. Now, I’ll grant you there’s not a lot of difference between the two, but there is one. Socialists abhor the free market and capitalism. New Deal Democrats don’t abhor the free market or capitalism in and of themselves: they despise part of the system, the fact that people fail, business go bankrupt, etc. They do however like how much money the system generates, which they can tax. They’re dimly aware that capitalism generates more money for them than socialism would, though they’re really murky about how it does this. As a result, they desperately want capitalism to survive, so that they can endlessly raise taxes on those rich people who have too much money, and spread it around among the rest of us. Never mind that this pretty much is socialism: they don’t see it, and think there’s a big distinction between redistributing wealth and redistributing wealth. I’m pretty sure Obama fits into this category.
Aug 19, 2008 - 2:56 pm 31. dragonfly:Punitive liberalism is the credo of “higher Education” in this country, drilled into the minds of the children of an affluent society, aware of having been “spoiled” by materialism and eager to “make this a better world”. The children of the affluent, from Lenin, to Castro, to Robert Kennedy Jr have always formed the power cadres within Marxism. “America is not fair, it is mean, God damn Amerika!”
These are the post-adolescents who formed the support base for Hward Dean and now uncritically rally in their millions to BO
We have allowed the Socialists to usurp the once-meaningful word “liberal”. It beats the hell out me why conservative writers and commentators studiously, deliberately refer to liberal, leftist, hard-leftist, progressive, collective – anything but naming the core belief- doctrinaire socialism. Most Americans would accept a center-Left president. Most would definitely reject an admitted Socialist. So, of course, even the most ardently marxist seeker of political office is going to don the mask of a puny ;unitive liberal.
There seems to be more concern about Obam’s ties to Islam than to socialism in his childhood. Unlike Robert Kennedy Jr., Obama’s socialism was not a reflex from affluence. He was born of a couple whose main bond was their Communism. They were both at the University of Hawwaai to study Russian, the language of Paradise. When she was abandoned by her Marxist husband, his mother turned to another dedicated Communist, an Indonesian “organizer”. When BO came back to Hawaai to live with his punitive liberal grandparents, his mentor and surrogate father was Frank Davis, a black communist firebrand, who directed him to Occidental College, a punitive liberal institution.
There have been few individuals in the history of American politics so totally immersed from birth in the precepts of punitive SOCIALISM as the Democrats’ Chosen One.
It is hard for me to believe that, within the membership of the Senate and the House, there are not a lot of serious politicians who are extremely uneasy about the mess they’ve got themselves into.
Aug 19, 2008 - 5:19 pm 32. David Warner:The beliefs of punitive socialism are difficult to distinguish from the content of the KGB propaganda offensive of the 50’s and 60’s. I sometimes wonder if the KGB didn’t win the Cold War after all.
Please refrain from sullying the proud word “liberal” and by association her sibling “liberty” by associating it with such beliefs.
Aug 19, 2008 - 6:30 pm 33. Rusty:I work in higher ed and it has been my experience that liberals believe a redistribution of wealth would leave everyone in the world like them! The only problem is that most liberals, due to education level and priveledged upbringing, live a MUCH better life than the average American. They don’t see why people shop at Wal-mart, live in a “green home,” and drive anything but a new hybrid vehicle.
LET’S SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND! Then everyone can drive their Toyota Prius to Whole Foods, where we can all enjoy a cafe mocha latte and talk about how we can save the environment.
Aug 19, 2008 - 7:14 pm 34. Tcobb:What I would love more than anything is a compassion tax. Signing up for it would be purely voluntary. Once you sign up for it then the voluntary side of it would cease. You wouldn’t be able to opt out of it for at least X number of years after you sign up for it. The social programs would all be paid via the compassion tax, and it would be very, very, progressive indeed. No matter what the financial demands of the social programs would be, the compassion tax would suck it out of the volunteers who agreed to pay it. And it would be a matter of public record as to the people who were on the list of being subject to the tax. And when people like Nancy Pelosi have to explain why they aren’t on the list we could all see their dirty little double standards shining for everyone to see.
Aug 19, 2008 - 7:58 pm 35. Soylent Red:Obama doesn’t want fairness. What he said is that he wants to create a “sense of fairness”.
So he doesn’t even want the results that actual fairness (whatever that means) would bring.
He wants people to PERCEIVE him as being “fair”.
The guy can’t even muster enough personal force of character to be a good SOCIALIST!
Aug 19, 2008 - 9:27 pm 36. Boogey_Man:To Anon and any other person of the left,
Please define the following words.
Fair
Fair share
Selfish
Greedy
Since most Dem domestic policy( and tax policy in particulare) are based around these and similar words, it would be very helpful to understand exactly what is meant by these terms.
Im sure they cant define these terms. Dem/progressive/Left thinking tends to be emotional based and these vague words exemplify this. Powerful, evocative words, yet possessing no defined borders or precise meaning. They are situational words. They only mean what an individuals gut tells them, changing moment to moment, person to person.
This is why debates between Progressives and Conservitives can be so maddening. A Conservitive wants to set the tax rate and structure such that it maximizes revenue to the Treasury and economic activity while minimizing unemployment. A Progressive wants to set the tax rate and tax structure so as to punish all of those evil clones of Thirsten Howell the Third. If only they could find these evil, elusive men (doubtlessly clad in top hat and tails, drinking martini’s before noon and speaking with a snooty accent through clenched teeth) they could tax them at 100% and thus exact vengence in the name of the worlds poor.
That is the difference. The Right argues economics. The Left seeks to attack people it deems evil.
Aug 19, 2008 - 9:31 pm 37. North Dallas Thirty:How different was Obama’s response. What he was looking for, he said, was “a sense of balance, and fairness in our tax code. It is time for folks like me who make more than $250,000 to pay our fair share.”
Question: if he believes that folks like him should be paying their fair share…….why hasn’t he been doing it already?
This is the truth of the matter. Obama DOESN’T want to pay his “fair share”, or at least the costs of his leftist demands; he wants to force everyone else to do it instead.
Aug 19, 2008 - 11:23 pm 38. sbourg:According to Obama, a person making $250,000 (or family…..he doesn’t want to say that) does not currently pay their fair share. It’s a fact that in most states with income taxes, and having a house requiring property taxes, and counting Social Security taxes……..those families or individuals are paying nearly 50% in taxes. But Obama simply wants to hide this fact, so that the lesser earners will adopt his mantra and try to nail the higher-earners even more. For Obama, it’s all about stealing even more from higher earners, AND getting more stupid voters. It’s a fact that the economy would be doing alot better if taxes weren’t nearly 50% for so many families. Not to mention, those families could save for retirement and pay for college alot easier…………but Obama doesn’t care about facts……..just votes. What an awful type of politician to have in our great country. And he’s just one of hundreds of Democrats in office in D.C. who preach this quasi-socialism. It will be our ruin if they keep being successful with it……..and keep being successful with preventing drilling where we have the most reserves!
Aug 20, 2008 - 4:16 am 39. Andy B:I declare from this day forward that liberals are not allowed to talk about the poor unless they know somebody who is poor. And here’s what disqualifies someone from being poor.
If you own a computer with internet access, have a cellphone, have a television with cable, at least one car, or a microwave, you are not poor.
So in other words, if you just returned from the store in your car where you bought microwave popcorn for the movie on HBO you plan to watch right after you check your email, you are not poor.
Seriously. Liberals do not know any poor people. And for that reason I declare the subject off limits to them. In fact, I think there aught to be a law passed banning all left-wingers from advocating on behalf of the poor.
After 50 years of advocacy on the poors behalf the only thing they’ve accomplished is the destruction of inner cities, black families, and public education. So to hand over the responsibility of the plight of the poor isn’t just irresponsible on our part. It borders on cruel and down right evil.
Liberals are like little children who want a new puppy. And when they get it they grab it by the neck, squeeze it until it’s almost dead. Not until an adult intercedes to save the puppy does the poor animal have another chance at life.
That should be how we look at the way liberals will help the poor. Not until adults intercede will they really have a chance at a good life.
Aug 20, 2008 - 5:08 am 40. Cassandra:Self-loathing is part and parcel of the postmodern dialectic: a mechanism for self-control along the lines of direct action with the aim of establishing redistribution of power and rights at the expense of the white, Christian, heterosexual, male power structure. This diabolical strategy for subverting the West probably originated at the Frankfurt School of Western Marxism and/or the KGB.
Aug 20, 2008 - 5:42 am 41. TomP:The word ‘fair’ or ‘fairness’ does not appear in the constitution, the bill of rights or the federalist papers and any politician using this word should be strung up. (Or at least defeated)
Aug 20, 2008 - 5:43 am 42. News & Opinion Roundup (20 Aug 08) | Democrat=Socialist:[...] Obama’s punitive liberalism, or why treating success as a form of failure is wrong [...]
Aug 20, 2008 - 8:15 am 43. Self-hating boomer:Tom, you know where else the word “fair” doesn’t appear? The ten commandments. By Obama’s standards, the Decalogue, handed down by God himself (he does claim to be a Christian, now doesn’t he?), is silent on questions of income and redistribution. It was good enough for God that we stay out of each other’s faces and not covet. But not good enough for the Obamessiah.
Aug 20, 2008 - 10:45 am 44. Lorne:Fair – What is fair anyway? This is such a hard question to answer and in fact cannot be answered because we all have a differnet idea what fairness is. I am getting old now (60yrs old) and my idea of fairness has been developed over the years.When I was young (early 70’s) I was always telling ny father (a successfull small biz owner) he should give his money to help poor people. My hippie girfriend had considerable inluence on me. Her father was an heavy drinker and on welfare most of the time. I used to complain to both my mother and father hat they did’t spend enough time with me. Both my parents came from household of extreme poverty. I did not understand that they were driven to create a diferent enviroment for my sister and me. Their 80 hour work weeks went on well past the time they required additional wealth but by this many people were depndant on the business my father had created. My father used to tell me all the time that once I was educated and out of the house, not to expect any further help in the way money.
Aug 20, 2008 - 11:10 am 45. fred:Cato’s remarks are pretty much the reality. Not many people have heard about the Gramscian “long march through the institutions.” Antonio Gramsci is the Communist theoretician who most influenced the Left’s strategy in this country, and in Western Europe.
Believe it or not, in my experience most of the Younger Cohort of the Baby Boomers are not punitive liberals. The higher number of punitive liberals (and the term is misleading because “punitive liberalism” really is socialism by another name)are in the Older Cohort of the Boomers. And the number of soft and hard socialists/Marxists among the under-40 crowd is a lot higher than you are led to believe. And that is due to the success of the Gramscian Strategy.
I am a former member of the Far Left (from over thirty years ago), so I know how this thing has been evolving. Most of the kids never studied Marxism and don’t know what it is. But their views have been a project for a long time, as they have taken socialism in like mother’s milk. They see the world a certain way, but they don’t know how they got there. Having not studied the history of ideas very well, if you ask them what Marxism is they could not tell you.
I see the Left on the move and ascendant in the U.S. We are the only country left where socialism has not been discredited. One way or another, we have a date with a confrontation about socialism. With Obama’s candidacy one of those critical moments has arrived. One way or another we have to come to terms with socialism and its legacy.
I left the Left because eventually I could no longer ignore the stack of intellectual problems stemming from socialist thought in my mental inbox called “cognitive dissonance.” For many people, they don’t even have such an inbox in their brains. And that’s frightening.
Aug 20, 2008 - 11:21 am 46. Lorne:My father eventually went bankrupt during a down turn in the economy. Tried to keep all the empolyees in wages to long. He had to retire on a small pension. I grew up fast. Started my own biz working those 80 hr,. weeks just like dad (no sacrafice was to large when came to the biz) My business to has grown and like dad I am responsible for many familly’s income and like dad I keep it going even in today’s economic climate. While to many of my employees can not seem to come to work on time on a regular basis, while to many complain about their wages even thoiugh we pay top wages in the county, while not one employee over the last 4 yrs has taken extra schooling for which I have offered to pay one half of. I could go on and on but the point I am making is, What is fair? I would feel a lot better when being told that I have to give more of the pie (Michelle Obama)if it were understood that all the people I see just crusin hold up there end to. I have talked to many small biz owners who share the same feelings. How many of you are out there and what are you doing about it?
Aug 20, 2008 - 11:29 am 47. ReCon USMC:Great write Roger .
Aug 20, 2008 - 11:36 am 48. Ardsgaine:Here are my 2 Cents .
Since the very Foundation of America was Founded on paying the price for Success though hard work , real caring , A positive attitude , Dealing with difficulty , getting knocked down and getting up , Job skills and education in your chosen fields that supports your own Self and Family .
Individually , Ethically, Financially and morally and Yes I know a bad word now a days and laughed at by Hollywood and the Media elite . Real ’success’ is no more of a accident than is a sure guarantee staying Drunk or on Drugs and driving will end in killing your self or worse others .
A higher education feeds you Ideals and Theories and is wonderful but a great Job skill feeds your family and pays your house payments and rising taxes and cost of living yearly . Given the Present needs I pick eating and paying my house payments over the theory of why Marxism is better than Capitalism . Debated in American Colleges since his death 81 years ago even though 160 Million were murdered and starved to death with those same theories . Somehow today Marxist theories makes sense and are Progressive and doable ?
‘Success’ wears the simple old well used Hat of I tried and tried and will never stop trying . Continued Failure wears the same old Hat of You do it for me because you told me rich others should do it for me while I lived the same unhappy self year after year .
I listened to you so I continued to be angry and of course continue to fail because of Rich successful white men ?
Neither you or I ever wondered why somehow since I kept voting for you to change me and others just like me .
You never did nor did I believing in your idealism that never gave me realism other than my continued Failure .
That was real just as much today as my needs were the first day I ever met your VERY LIBERAL THINKING many years ago telling me you could help me If I just voted for you .I did for many years as did my neighbors and you didn’t .
In equating wealth with moral failure, is Obama following Marx, or Jesus? Jesus may not have had a political agenda, but his moral agenda is the foundation on which socialism rests. How do you expect to be rid of the latter without getting rid of the former? Christianity does not provide moral support for freedom and capitalism. If you believe in the latter, then Christianity is your enemy, not your friend.
Aug 20, 2008 - 12:45 pm 49. ReCon USMC:Ardsgaine: wrote : And a good Question .
In equating wealth with moral failure, is Obama following Marx, or Jesus? Jesus may not have had a political agenda, but his moral agenda is the foundation on which socialism rests. How do you expect to be rid of the latter without getting rid of the former? Christianity does not provide moral support for freedom and capitalism. If you believe in the latter, then Christianity is your enemy, not your friend.
Aug 20, 2008 - 1:07 pm 50. Lorne:____________________________________
Except You Teach a Man how to Fish and he eats and feeds many…..hence Capitalism was born … Atheist or Christians morals or lack there of .Then neither has a ” need” to be a Socialist.
You feed a man daily and he has no need to fish or feed others .
Socialism murdered , starved to death , Imprisoned and harmed more than it ever feed or helped .The USA last year between Our Government , religious groups and individuals helped more people in the world than the rest of the entire world put together .
Plus Conservatives give more money in help than do Liberals .
And Socialism was never a poor mans friend .
In my long Career in The Furniture industry .I never saw one poor man hire anyone .Yes I hired many and make much $ .
A damn nasty Capitalist I am I am !
It is clear I want be Obama’s VP …Ah shucks .(grin)
To ReCon USMS – I believe you have had many of the same experiences and formed the same conclusions about our country and our way of life. As imprfect as it seems to some, it is still the best society man has known. I hope it is not to late for people like minded, to take back this country before it sinks into the abyiss called socialism.
Aug 20, 2008 - 1:20 pm 51. Geoff:To Ardsgaine and Self-hating boomer:
With regard to the values taught in the Decalogue, and in the teachings of Christ, you both seem to be missing the point…
First, the Judeo-Christian God, as even a cursory examination of the Bible will attest, takes very seriously the way God’s people treat everyone, but especially the poor, needy, and the foreigner. In fact, Ardsgaine is correct to point out that there are elements of Socialism inherent within Scripture, such as the year of Jubilee, which involved an extensive redistribution of wealth. God is clearly not a capitalist.
However, to simply stop there is to miss the bigger picture: Christianity was never intended to promote any political or economic system, because the whole point of Christianity is that it supercedes any other system. If one believes in Christ, one should follow Christ’s teachings, regardless of what kind of system is in place.
Christ did not promote Socialism, he promoted discipleship, which is infinitely more radical. Christianity is founded on the belief that God actually cares about humanity, and we should care about our fellow humans simply because God cares. This means that we (as much as is humanly possible in our finitude) abandon any plan that attempts to build up some humans at the expense of tearing others down. Since both Capitalism and Socialism are guilty of this in different ways and at different times, Christianity opposes both, when necessary, but also may utilize both, depending on the circumstances.
Thus, Christianity will serve as a critique to both Capitalism and Socialism, depending on which system holds sway, because Christianity recognizes the flaws in all man-made systems and calls people to strive for something higher than a particular economic or social system. This is what makes Christianity – in its pure form, not watered down by collusion with any “-ism” – so potentially world-changing, and, often, so threatening.
Aug 20, 2008 - 2:38 pm 52. Robohobo:From fred @ Aug 20, 2008 – 11:21 am:
Hell, I am a Red Diaper Baby (Google it). I moved to the free side of the political spectrum about 10 years ago or so. More so after 9/11. I studied Marx, Engels and Hegel in high school. Most in the US do not even know the origin of the term political correctness and what it implies. We are in such deep denial in this country that we are going to go down that road to serfdom so damn fast unless we wake up and stop legitimizing the useful idiots among us. I don’t think that the likes of the Democrat leadership even realize how bad it is OR they are complicit with the International Party and CPUSA. After all they already got theirs. What they do not realize is it CAN be taken away again.
I just got run off of a supposedly rather libertarian blog because I dared state that ‘International Law’ was a Marxist construct, which it is. Well, the name calling started and those tolerant liberals just ticked me off for the last time. Fools and useful idiots.
That Obama’s “non-military national security force” has not raised more of a hew and cry is puzzling to me. With that statement he tells us he is going to organize the new version of the ‘Brownshirts’. Or his version of ‘The Young Pioneers’ perhaps?
We elect this poseur we get what we deserve – international communism, reeducation gulags and confiscation of private property. It is all there to see it just seems no one will stand up and say so.
Daddy was a Commie
Mommy was/is a Commie
Step-daddy was/is a Commie
His closest friend is a domestic terrorist
His main business partner (Resco) is a criminal
His wife has never been proud of the country that GAVE her the best education that money can buy for almost free
His pastor is an America and white hating racist
This guy is just dangerous.
Aug 20, 2008 - 4:04 pm 53. Mike Boyce:Kudos on the article and the great comments by your readers. You and they have hit the nail right on the proverbial head. The left/Democratic Party/socialist elite of America have been out to accomplish victory on a two-pronged frontal attach…brainwash the everyday American through guilt and propoganda (that would make the Nazis look like amateurs) and support America’s international enemies by weakening America’s military strength and moral resolve to fight to defend our country and its freedoms. They have come very close to succesfully destroying America’s entrepreneurship and economy through taxation and “environmental” regulations. Electing Mr. Obama would be the coup de gras in this economic warfare campaign they have been waging. His election as President would also damage America’s Supreme Court and Federal Court appointments and therefore position on “issues” almost beyond saving. The Constitution would be completely voided through “interpretation” and outright disregard in their decisions from the bench. We can say goodbye to our mobility and freedom of movement brought about by outrageous fuel prices, say goodbye to the ability to defend ourselves from the common criminal to the secret police as they disarm the public, freedom of expression will only be allowed if you express what they agree with through the criminalization of certain words and/or opinions and beliefs (such as the propoganda war being waged on Christianity at this very moment-the parallel with Hitler and the Jews is frightening). Conservative and Christian broadcasting would be crippled through the so called “Fairness Doctrine.” These are very frightening times in America and we are on the verge of losing it all in this one election. It is the type of crisis which will give birth to focused and thoughtfull consideration of civil unrest or a civil war, God forbid. Pray earnestly and thoughtfully, America. This election is paramount in the history of America as we know it.
Aug 20, 2008 - 5:06 pm 54. ReCon USMC:Recently I sat down and reread The 10 Commandants .
Aug 20, 2008 - 5:37 pm 55. fred:When I finished them I began to simply wonder why the left found those basic ideal ways .How to live our lives far better and nothing was intimidating in them at all .
My gracious why the anger. hostatily , fire and law suits over Honor there Father and Mother and do unto others as you would do unto your self . And The other 8 were no more intimating as well .
One suspects they see Morals as a threat to their Conciousness since as Darwin said .Man is a Animal only a little more complex .Or those 10 Commandants were a threat to our Natural sexual desires and restrict our pleasures .
The only problem is who Trust you then or is self then a monator of control given your throwing them all away .
Life is far more than a Napkin we use and through away one hopes and yes prays .
Robohobo,
Yes, I know what a Red Diaper Baby is. There were a LOT of them among the Older Cohort of Baby Boomers. I left the Left in 1987 and sort of gravitated in a moderate zone, in between the liberal Left and the conservative Right during the nineties. After 9/11 I was so horrified by the blatant alliance that the Left was forging with Islam that I moved Right of center. In fact, I learned that this alliance of convenience between the socialists and the Muslims had been in the works for quite a long time. So, I burned my bridges and I can see absolutely no way of going back to the Left ever again.
Before I left the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits) I had been training to be an academic theologian/philosopher. My project was to explore the ways we could get around the valid objections, based on human nature, from the criticisms of socialism from people like Michael Novak. Eventually, I discovered that socialist societies do not produce more moral human beings. Quite the opposite, actually. Plus, in terms of growing an economy and providing opportunity, socialism fails everywhere, always has failed, and ever shall fail.
It is the disturbing lack of an intellectual search, a lack of study of the ideas themselves, and a paucity of historical knowledge that marks today’s Leftists. Earlier generations of them were generally more solid in their academic grasp of ideas and history. The newer generations of socialists are idiots, pure and simple. I hate to be that blunt, but it’s true. When I read the stuff over at the Left wing blogs these days I am stunned by the lack of erudition and knowledge.
Aug 20, 2008 - 5:40 pm 56. Polemicscat:America’s First Lesson in Economics
In the 1620’s the experience of Plymouth Colony proved an economic principle which a part of human nature. Governor William Bradford tells in his journal, Plimouth Plantation, that for three years the colonists lived as a socialist community, putting all their crops in a common storehouse. But each year they faced famine. Then Bradford decided to “assign to every family a parcel of land” from which the family could grow its own produce. “This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious,” and when harvest time came, “instead of famine, now God gave them plentie.” And “some of the abler and more industrious sorte had [produce] to spare and to sell to others.”
Aug 20, 2008 - 7:40 pm 57. Paul M Hupf:Senator Obama is a Marxist, not a follower of Jesus.
Aug 20, 2008 - 8:20 pm 58. Kevin:It has finally dawned on me why I have been a conservative my entire adult life. I grew up Catholic. And a Catholic mother is not bested by any other group in the guilt trip arena. Many are her equals, but none are superior. And “punitive liberalism”, aka leftists, aren’t fit to polish her shoes. With all respects to Rush. So I am immune to all others. Only Catholic Mother can still guilt me into doing things I don’t feel like doing. To the leftists, go grab some pine. Your kung-fu is weak.
Aug 21, 2008 - 8:55 am 59. Virgil:I love McCain’s attempt to wriggle out of his “$5 million” gaffe: “I want EVERYONE to be rich!” Sure, like that’s going to happen after 8 years of Bush/Cheney destruction — or ever, for that matter.
One more example of how oblivious McSame is about the lives of ordinary people. One more example of Republican HYPOCRISY.
Aug 21, 2008 - 5:46 pm 60. Ed Wallis:Oh, “Virgil”…SIGH.
Since you think that it is a “gaffe” for someone to say they would like “everyone to be rich”…
…what do you call it when someone says in-so-many-words that they would like everyone to be POOR – which is the proven reality of socialist policies around the world…and of THE OBAMBOOZLER.
And, by the way, if “fairness” or “equality” were REALLY the goal, what’s wrong with “everyone being rich”…that some might be richer than others?…yeah, right! Among the poor, there are varying degrees of poverty, but one doesn’t hear Leftist bleating about that….
“Virgil,” you are nothing less than a USEFUL IDIOT on the march towards socialism.
Aug 22, 2008 - 2:02 am 61. Lorne:Virgil – get a job!!
Aug 22, 2008 - 5:36 am 62. Common Sense and Wonder » Punitive Liberalism:[...] Kimball on Obama’s revival of ‘punitive liberalism’: Why are many thoughtful people, including many Democrats, so uneasy about the prospect of an Obama [...]
Aug 22, 2008 - 9:38 am 63. nobozons:Fair is that everyone pays the same tax rate. Unfair is have to pay retribution for being successful. When politicians can steal you success and give it to those who are not successful for what ever reason, then all success will disappear from our shores. Remember the yacht industry’s tax demise.
Aug 22, 2008 - 10:59 am 64. bear:Virgil, You give the presidency too much credit for our economic status whether good or bad….what you’re really saying is that you blame them for the war and it’s cost (that has exacerbated the problems today. I was against the war before I was for it. I’ve never met a democrat yet that was a pragmatist about solving problems.
Independent
Aug 22, 2008 - 1:08 pm 65. AdrianS:Philip J. Berg, Esq. Files Federal Lawsuit Requesting Obama Be Removed as a Candidate as he does not meet the Qualifications for President.
http://www.nextgenerationcorp.com/NextGenBlog/?p=43
Aug 22, 2008 - 3:49 pm 66. Rubicon:If the liberal socialists want to be “fair,” then all the rich ones need do is “send a check to the Department of the Treasury.” That check can be in any amount they wish to make it to assuage their “guilt.” There is no rule, no law, no policy, no regulation, that prohibits or inhibits them writing their “guilt checks.”
Aug 24, 2008 - 8:08 am 67. Timothy Birdnow » Punitive Liberalism:Now, just how many of those checks have we seen, or does anyone expect us to ‘ever’ see?
The word NONE comes to mind.
The national service idea reminds me of the “brown-shirts’ idea that lead one nation into chaos. Mandatory or compulsory national service under the guise of “service” which these guys want, is not like anything we expect it to be. It will be a failure & will lead to something I think could be dangerous.
As for the “punishment aspects or the atonement white men are to pay, or that America is to pay, for “misdeeds, etc., what we have here is a political philosophy trying to undermine other political philosophies by relegating the latter to that of criminal, while maintaining the former is “all good, decent, and ‘fair.’”
Assigning “blame” to all white men, is simply idiotic. That’s like blaming all black men for rape or drug additions. Its like blaming all Mexicans for laziness & social services abuses.
Trying to find someone to blame is merely another attempt by one group to gain advantage over others so they can control them. If liberal socialists think this method will last more than a year or two, they are truly fool’s. No one is going to buy into collective guilt & penance for past transgressions someone has decided they committed.
And America, like every other nation on the planet, has made mistakes, but in the end her goods far exceed any bads her detractors can conjure up.
The one world government idea also sucks. In America and many other nations on the planet, we have large governments that make mistakes. It takes awhile in some cases, but we eventually correct those mistakes.
Imagine if you can one government, huge, gargantuan really, issuing orders & controlling armies & law enforcement. Imagine trying to get that body to admit its errors & correct them. If you think for even a nano second that would happen, I have some ocean front coastal property in New Mexico I want to sell you!
We may have many nations making many mistakes in the name of their peoples. But at least we have nations that can correct their mistakes. In a one world government, even mentioning the government made a mistake will get you jailed or dead!
We have enough problems dealing with the huge bureaucracies we have here in America that the government has established. Why would we have an unelected international government body, whose bureaucratic side would dwarf even America’s bureaucracies?
DHS failed New Orleans. Now, imagine a one world government bureaucracy, which by necessity will be unelected appointed bureaucrats, responding to such catastrophes?
We will be better off with a planet that has over 190 individual national governments that respond to the peoples of those nations who elect them. One world order, means, despotism on a global scale. The UN represents what such a despotic organization a one world government would become.
[...] Mathewson sends us a terrific article from Pajamas Media by Roger Kimball on “Punitive Liberalism“, that vice which has infected the Democratic (sic) Party and a large swath of our fellow citizenry [...]
Aug 25, 2008 - 8:37 am 68. Ravalli County News » Blog Archive » Punitive Liberalism:[...] Roger Kimball: Obama’s punitive liberalism, or why treating success as a form of failure is wrong [...]
Aug 25, 2008 - 9:30 pm 69. Jeebus:Whew…talk about a wingnut circle jerk. It must suck to be so wrong so often. Here’s an idea…why don’t all of you “successful” people take all of your money and shove it up your collective assess sideways.
Peace,
Aug 30, 2008 - 10:32 pm 70. Roger’s Rules » The recalcitrance of facts, or Barney Frank as Doctor Who:Jeebus
[...] Team Obama says, “Sure, but it’s going to cost you.” [...]
Oct 5, 2008 - 11:04 am 71. Amused Cynic » Blog Archive » The year was 2008, Obama was about to become president, and everyone was finally about to become equal…Why am I suddenly thinking so much about John Galt, Winston Smith, and Harrison Bergeron?:[...] observed in this space a few weeks ago, Obama espouses a form of what James Piereson has called “punitive liberalism.” Because he regards the American people as essentially selfish (a sentiment memorably reinforced [...]
Nov 1, 2008 - 11:00 am 72. Punitive Liberalism « Thinking Things Through:[...] I was not familiar with the phrase “punitive liberalism” until I read this essay. The term originates with James Pierson who wrote: the Democratic party was gradually taken over by [...]
Nov 1, 2008 - 12:40 pm 73. Roger’s Rules » Commander-in-chief vs. Nanny-in-chief, or two cheers for selfishness:[...] in this space a few weeks ago, Obama espouses a form of what James Piereson has called “punitive liberalism.” Because he regards the American people as essentially selfish (a sentiment memorably [...]
Nov 1, 2008 - 11:19 pm 74. Roger’s Rules » The 2 percent solution, or, the tyranny of the majority returns with a vengeance:[...] But raising revenue isn’t really the point. The chief goal of the President’s 2 percent solution is, first, to punish success and then to render its repetition impossible. What we have here is an perfect example of what James Piereson has called “punitive liberalism,” i.e., the distinctly illiberal pursuit of vengeance against class enemies through policies that may be counterproductive but that have the advantage of penalizing a part of the population that so-called liberals find distasteful. I wrote about this dimension of the President’s platform during the campaign (see “Obama’s punitive liberalism, or why treating success as a form of failure is wrong“). [...]
Mar 2, 2009 - 3:50 pm 75. Confiscatory Tax Rate Dreams From My Father:[...] the rubric of fairness
Mar 13, 2009 - 2:00 am